Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Thames Gateway

Jonathan R Shaw: What steps he is taking to ensure that existing communities share the benefits of the Thames gateway development programme.

Keith Hill: The Government are determined that existing communities will share fully in the benefits of the big new investment to support housing growth in the Thames gateway. I am pleased to say that only last week the Government announced £100 million of funding to new Thames gateway projects, aimed at improving educational, health, environmental and transport provision in the gateway. Since last year, the Government's investment in community improvements in the gateway has risen to £475 million.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for that reply from my right hon. Friend. May I extol the virtues of the All Saints neighbourhood project? It is essential, if the gateway is to develop successfully, that the existing communities not only feel the benefits but are part of the development. That will include not just shiny new buildings away from some of the poorer areas in the Medway towns, but improvements in street lighting, the environment and safety—all the things that impact on people's daily lives when they open their front doors. When my right hon. Friend is giving out the money, will he ensure that councils and other delivery units engage with the communities, especially those in Chatham?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend may extol to his heart's content, because he is right in everything that he says. He is right about the Chatham social regeneration project, which was one of the successful projects and will, following our announcement last week, receive £550,000 from my Department. That project covers streetscape and public realm improvements in the area around Luton Arches in his constituency and environmental enhancements to Fort Amherst. The project also builds on the £10 million ODPM allocation for the regeneration of Chatham town centre.

John Hayes: Unlike the rest of the Government's community plans, the Thames gateway project has merit, but serious concerns about the infrastructure, the environment and community buy-in were raised in the recent debate by the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). What specific steps will the Minister take, beyond the usual consultation procedures and representative process, to ensure that the existing population's interests are taken fully into account? The people of the Medway towns, Bexleyheath and Ilford want action, not just more talk from this lacklustre ministerial team in a careless Government.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman does his best, but it is a dismal effort. We did have a debate on the Thames gateway on Monday evening and the immense benefits that the scheme will confer on local communities were universally acknowledged by all the hon. Members who contributed. The fact is that absolutely every aspect of the investment programme in the Thames gateway is based on the involvement of local communities. Indeed, the entire mechanism for the delivery of the Thames gateway project is based on local delivery vehicles.

Derek Wyatt: In my constituency, we have had a £100 million bridge and a £25 million new ring road. We are grateful for those and we are looking forward to the development of the Thames gateway. In conjunction with the housing projection for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, will my right hon. Friend produce an infrastructure audit, so that we will get the schools, the GPs' surgeries and so on at the same time as the housing?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right, and to his list of transport investments in his constituency we can add the Sittingbourne learning hub, the Elmley Sheppey building crafts centre to train apprentices, and the Sheerness children and family centre. All of those are benefits conferred as a result of the Thames gateway projects. He is also right that we need to bring in the necessary health and education provision simultaneously with the housing developments. My Department is working closely with other Departments to ensure that such simultaneous delivery is secured.

Regional Chambers

Mark Francois: What the cost was of regional chambers in England, in 2003–04; and how many staff they employed.

Nick Raynsford: The total Government grant allocated to the eight regional chambers in 2003–04 was £14 million. They employed some 302 staff at the end of the 2003–04 financial year.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply and I note that the Deputy Prime Minister has ducked the opportunity to respond to the question. Given that in the north-east the people voted overwhelmingly—by 78 per cent. to 22 per cent.—not to have a regional assembly, those bodies now lack any political or moral authority. Should not we now abolish those white elephants and hand planning powers back to locally elected authorities where they rightfully belong?

Nick Raynsford: No, and let me quote someone on this subject:
	"Despite the north-east vote, there will still be a requirement for effective regional planning functions, provision of democratic mandate for the regions and effective scrutiny of other regional bodies—a role in which the assembly and other voluntary chambers have shown themselves to be extremely competent."
	That was written two weeks ago, by Sue Sida-Lockett, the Conservative chair of the East of England regional assembly.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the North West regional assembly does a very good job, as does the Northwest Development Agency, in considering strategic issues in the north-west? Does he further agree that the result of the vote in the north-east the other week in no way diminishes the fact that, at the end of the day, there is still a very strong case for democratic accountability in the regions?

Nick Raynsford: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The Government expect the North West regional assembly, like other assemblies, to perform functions in relation to regional planning and the oversight of the regional development agency, but it also does a number of other jobs in the north-west and contributes to the wider debate on economic development and regeneration, which is absolutely critical to that region. Clearly, as I said in the response to the previous question, there is an ongoing and important role for regional assemblies, which include a majority of members from elected local authorities.

Caroline Spelman: Today is the day for quotes. Sir Jeremy Beecham, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, says:
	"We have regional government conducted in piecemeal fashion by civil servants, quangos and next steps agencies, with minimal accountability to the regions they serve."
	If the leader of the Labour group of the Local Government Association can see the problem, why cannot the Deputy Prime Minister?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady will know only too well that there is a strong case for the preparation of regional planning guidance and that that was put in place by the Conservative party when in government. The structures that the Conservative Government proposed called for consultation with elected representatives from local councils, plus others involved in regional development. The difference between the outcomes then and now is that, in those days, the Secretary of State decided what the outcome was—it was entirely a decision by central Government—but we have modernised the system and devolved power so that decisions are taken by bodies such as the one chaired by the Conservative whom I quoted a moment ago, who believes that regional chambers are the means to engage local authorities in the formulation of regional planning guidance.

Decent Home Standard

Andrew Love: What his strategy is for meeting the decent home standard.

John Prescott: In 1997, we inherited 2 million non-decent homes. Since then, more than £18 billion of public and private money has been invested to reduce that number by more than 1 million. That means 650,000 homes with new central heating, 240,000 new kitchens, 180,000 new bathrooms, making a real difference to people's lives—people who suffered from the massive disinvestment of the previous Administration. We remain on track to deliver our commitment to make every home in the public sector decent by 2010.

Andrew Love: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on attaining 1 million improved homes earlier this year, but there is considerable concern about the lack of affordable accommodation for key workers in Greater London. What steps is he taking to ensure that they can have decent, affordable accommodation, so that we do not continue to lose key workers from the capital?

John Prescott: That is indeed a very important problem. The first tranche of the starter home initiative delivered about 10,000 affordable homes under the key worker programme. We have also established a new programme—the key worker living programme, which began in March 2004—and 16,000 people will benefit from it. In the borough of Enfield and my hon. Friend's constituency, about 120 people have already been helped by that programme and 264 further applications are being dealt with at the moment.

Nicholas Winterton: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that Macclesfield borough council achieves a housing standard far in excess of the decent housing standard. It is known in his Department as the Macclesfield standard. Will he ensure that Macclesfield borough council continues to get sufficient resources to enable it to continue to manage its own housing stock and not force it into a large-scale voluntary transfer, against the wishes of tenants, who have my support?

John Prescott: I am glad to hear of the new Macclesfield standard. It is a pity that it did not apply throughout the previous Administration, which is why we inherited 2 million houses of a non-decent standard for which the programme has been developed. It is true that we gave a choice to tenants as to whether they would like to opt for the transfer programmes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Those transfers have brought in something like £18 billion-worth of money from the public and private sectors and allowed us to implement the programme more quickly. We leave it to the tenants to make a decision and three quarters of those asked have voted overwhelmingly to adopt these programmes.

Ivan Henderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a ward in my constituency called Jaywick Sands because I have made the Department aware of the fact that some people in that area are living in 1930s holiday homes. The area has deteriorated for several years under the control of Tory Essex county council and Tory Tendring district council. My constituents are looking to the Government to make a difference. Will he assure them that he will look at the area specifically so that the local people have a right to a decent home to live in?

John Prescott: I do not know the full details of the point made by my hon. Friend, but I will certainly look into the matter and write to him. One of the difficulties that we inherited is the fact that, in the last five years of the Tory Administration, they slashed housing investment by half. We doubled it in the same period after. That is the real difference, and that is why people look to this Government to make a real difference on housing.

Mark Field: To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the programme for decent homes for key workers should not be restricted just to those who work in the public sector? It should cover those who work in catering, cleaning, retail and other low-paid jobs in the private sector.

John Prescott: To be honest, matters of state aid are involved, but the hon. Gentleman makes a decent point about a broader definition of key workers. We have established a certain key worker definition at the moment, and we are following that. We hope to make a statement about housing matters shortly.

County Councils (Planning)

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to strengthen the planning powers of county councils.

Phil Hope: The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 and supporting regulations provide for county councils to have an extensive role in the new planning system, which came into force on 28 September 2004. It would be premature now to be considering further changes to county councils' planning powers.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Norfolk is having forced on it nearly 100,000 extra homes? Is he aware that this will put intolerable new pressure on already overstretched services and infrastructure? Is he aware that my constituents want more affordable housing, but they do not want thousands of more executive-style homes that are occupied by second home owners? Surely it would be far better if such key decisions were taken by a county council that is directly elected by local people.

Phil Hope: The importance of regional planning has been recognised by successive Governments—his Government in the past as well as by this Government. That is why we have to address major regional transport and housing issues across a region as well as within individual local areas. The fact is that one of the key benefits of this Government's regional planning policy has been the investment of £3.9 million for housing in King's Lynn and west Norfolk. That is providing homes for key workers and affordable housing for people in the hon. Gentleman's area.

Ann Cryer: Can my hon. Friend comment on the fact that there has been a democratic deficit for my constituents and others in the metropolitan counties since Mrs. Thatcher removed those councils? We do not have planning or any other sort of powers, because we do not have a county council. Will he comment on that?

Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. We are trying to ensure that local authorities have the ability to undertake the responsibilities that they are given. A key part of having the ability to deliver those functions is having the resources to do so. She will know that, since 1997, local authorities across the board have received an increase of 30 per cent. in funding from the Government. Local authorities suffered desperately to deliver services under the previous Administration who cut funding by 7 per cent. in the previous four years.

Paul Beresford: The Minister will be aware that the South East England regional assembly draft housing numbers plan is out—it is a pretty shoddy affair. It is lightly done and ignores a few basic factors, of which I shall cite two. First, the extrapolation of growth from the past ignores the fact that after land has been built on, it has gone, so the continuation of that process threatens the green belt. Secondly, economic growth in the south-east is based on productivity to a greater extent than actual given numbers. Will the Minister reflect on his first answer and recognise that county councils need a strengthened role, even if they must save the dignity of the Deputy Prime Minister and put things through the regional assemblies?

Phil Hope: The fact is that the South East England regional assembly has a Conservative majority and is chaired by a Conservative councillor, so the hon. Gentleman is criticising his own party. Perhaps he should hold a debate inside his party and decide how it should deliver the affordable homes in the south-east that are desperately needed by people with sons and daughters who cannot afford to find a place to live in their areas.

John Mann: In Nottinghamshire, some planning matters go to the county council for decision and some go to district councils. Will the Minister make the situation much easier for my constituents by giving us a ballot on a unitary authority so that we can enjoy the benefits that most of the country does?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend will know that we recently published our "Local Vision" documents, which describe the outline of our proposals for the future strengthening of local government and the role that local government can play in leading and empowering communities and working in partnership with other agencies. Included in the 10-year vision is a debate on the future structure of local government, and I look forward to the contribution of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to that debate.

Edward Davey: The Minister will recall that Liberal Democrats fought against taking planning powers away from county councils to the last when other parties had thrown in the towel. There is now no early prospect of any regional planning boards becoming properly accountable. Will he revisit that matter, recognise the strength of our arguments on democracy and local government, and give planning powers back to English county councils?

Phil Hope: Once again, we see the Liberal Democrats moving from one position to another. There is no mistaking the fact that their national position is different from their local and regional positions. The previous system was hopelessly bureaucratic, but the new system gives county councils clear powers on sub-regional policies and responsibilities for surveying in their areas. It allows them to produce new waste and mineral plans and to form joint committees with other authorities on key aspects in their areas. To go back to the older system would be to go back to delay and conflict, and that would fail to deliver the housing and infrastructure that the Government are delivering.

Eric Pickles: The Minister talks as though the vote in the north-east was a hiccup on the road to regionalism rather than its death knell. Does he not understand that denial is no substitute for a policy? He and his hon. Friends made it clear on countless occasions that the transfer of planning powers from counties and other authorities to regional bodies was done in preparation for an elected regional assembly. Those unelected bodies have no legitimacy in doing the Government's bidding by bulldozing over our countryside. Their powers must be returned to the people. Does the Minister understand that while he and his colleagues might run from the decision of the people of the north-east, they cannot hide from the verdict of the people?

Phil Hope: That was an interesting contribution from a member of the Conservative Front Bench because the Conservative chair of the East of England regional assembly said that such Tory criticisms
	"demonstrates a crass misunderstanding of the role of voluntary regional chambers".
	Such crass misunderstanding has been repeated today. The Conservative party published planning guidance in 1992 that said:
	"up to date regional planning guidance is necessary in every region".
	Conservative Members now want to sweep that aside, but the consequences of that would be that housing, transport and infrastructure would be taken away from every single one of their constituencies. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. I know how difficult it is.

Housing (Eastern England)

Mark Prisk: If he will make a statement on housing provision along the Cambridge-Stansted-London corridor.

Nick Raynsford: London, Stansted, Cambridge and Peterborough form one of the four growth areas that will play a key role in delivering the sustainable communities plan. The East of England regional assembly recently made its proposals to the Government for housing provision in the east of England, including this growth area. Those will now be subject to public consultation and examination.

Mark Prisk: I thank the Minister for that statement, although I have to say that EERA's proposals are, as many of my constituents think, both undemocratic and, frankly, unsustainable. Given that Hertfordshire is the most densely populated county in England, will the Government invest in and improve our infrastructure before approving more houses?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point about the importance of combining infrastructure investment with new housing provision. It is precisely because of the Government's recognition of that that we have defined the growth area strategies and are ensuring a more integrated approach rather than the one that his party pursued when in government, which led to the sprawl of uncontrolled low-density development that produces the problem about which he complains. If Hertfordshire has a problem of development, it is because when his party was in government it allowed large-scale urban sprawl in that area.

Simon Burns: Will the Minister accept that there is considerable anger as a result of the decision by the East of England regional assembly to impose 14,000 extra houses on the Chelmsford local authority area? Why is it right that an illegitimate, unelected organisation has the right to take those decisions rather than elected borough councillors on planning departments in Chelmsford?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman clearly has either not been listening to the debate or chosen deliberately to ignore it. The chair of the East of England regional assembly is of the same party as the hon. Gentleman. He decisively dismissed his carping comments as ill-informed and rightly made the point that it is doing a good job. The hon. Gentleman has to remember that the proposals will be subject to consultation and examination in public. The important thing that his party fails to recognise is the issue of how we provide the housing that people need and do so in a sustainable way. Unlike his party, the Government are addressing those issues seriously.

Local Government Reform

George Mudie: If he will make a statement on his plans for reforms in local government.

John Prescott: In July I published a discussion document "The future of local government: Developing a 10 year vision". This vision puts local government at the heart of our communities in the years ahead. It also makes clear that both local and central government will need to change to meet the challenges of building sustainable communities in which people want to live.

George Mudie: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. In his post-referendum review, will he assure the House that councils will be key deliverers of services and not just enablers, handing out contracts to the private sector? Will he also assure us that such ideas as taking all primary schools or high schools out of direct local government control will not be part of his future plans?

John Prescott: I can assure my hon. Friend that local authorities are key in developing local and national services. I can also tell him that the extra powers and resources that we have provided will enable them to do that.
	Regarding whether the community assets of schools, whether secondary or primary, are directly controlled by the local authority, I assure him that in Leeds and other parts of the country, as he knows, there is an increasing amount of community involvement in the new deals, the new neighbourhood areas, Sure Start and the local strategic partnerships. More than 1 million people are now participating in decisions and sharing community assets. In that sense, the community is enriched by using those assets for the benefit of the community, working with local authorities in creating new services for the citizens in their area.

Matthew Green: When the Deputy Prime Minister publishes his White Paper on local government reform, will it include details of his planned revaluation of properties and their council tax bands? When will he come clean on that?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have said that we will keep to the timetable for the revaluation of properties that is set out in legislation. The White Paper will deal with future changes to local government.

Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to help local government to sustain services to its communities. Has he any plans to bring into being more town or parish councils with a view to bringing local government closer to the electorate?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; he has tremendous experience of working in local government. As he will know, our new document on local vision makes it clear that we want more active citizen engagement and participation, which will be brought about by greater local leadership and will certainly be to the improvement of the community.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Heath: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 November.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I know that the whole House will wish to express our grief at what has happened to Margaret Hassan and to join in paying tribute to her for 30 years dedicated to working for the good of the people of Iraq.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

David Heath: The whole House will join in condemnation and dismay at the brutal murder of another innocent victim in Iraq.
	The Home Secretary said that he does not want to create a climate of fear, and I am sure that he is right, but we also recognise the real and present threat of terrorism. Why, then, does he intend to spend billions of pounds on an identity card system which did not work in New York or Madrid, instead of spending that money on more police, better security services, the protection of our travelling public—as in America—and our emergency response? Why does he believe that we can fight terrorism with plastic?

Tony Blair: A large part of the cost is to do with the introduction of biometric passports, which will be done in any event. I believe that identity cards do have a role to play, and I think that most people would recognise now that, if we want to secure our borders properly and ensure that people are not coming into or operating in this country illegally, it is not unreasonable to ask people to have some system of identity.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister will be aware that in July 2003 the intelligence services withdrew reports on Iraq's weapons as wholly discredited. Will he undertake to let the House know the information that he has consistently refused to give in writing, namely the exact date—not the period, but the date—on which he was aware of that withdrawal?

Tony Blair: I think I am right in saying that we made it clear that the doubts about the information to which my hon. and learned Friend is referring were drawn to our attention during the Butler review. I can certainly look into the precise date on which that happened. It has to be said, however, and I hope that he understands this, that the information and intelligence that we received, we received in good faith and acted on in good faith.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in the remarks that he made about the murder of Margaret Hassan. This murder of an innocent woman, a Muslim woman, who dedicated her entire life to the welfare of the people of Iraq, shows yet again that we are up against barbaric terrorists who want to destroy Iraq's future, and we must stand steadfast in the face of their terror.
	The chief executive of the Child Support Agency has just resigned. The agency is in crisis. What is the Prime Minister going to do to get a grip on the problem and help some of the poorest families in our country who are not getting the money that they are entitled to?

Tony Blair: The first thing to do, obviously, is to ensure that the information technology system that has caused so many problems is sorted out. The second, and perhaps most important, problem is that there are still a million cases being dealt with under the old system—the system that we inherited. Over time, there will be a migration to the new system that we introduced, which is far simpler. It is important that we manage to migrate as many cases as possible from the old system to the new.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has been in office for seven and a half years. His Government are responsible for the new computer; his Government are responsible for the new assessment system; and it is his Government's chief executive who has just resigned. The Child Support Agency has failed to collect £750 million owed to some of the poorest families in Britain. Those people desperately needed that money to help bring up their children. They have been denied it by the failures of this Government. Do they not deserve better?

Tony Blair: Of course what has happened is not acceptable. That is precisely why it is important to change. However, I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a million cases are being dealt with under the old scheme because those claims were made under the previous Administration and the scheme that we inherited. I am very happy to take lessons from people who have found that they have not got the service that they need under the new system, but I will not take lessons from a Conservative party that introduced a child support system that was a byword for chaos and unfairness.

Linda Perham: Following the Prime Minister's visit to President Bush last week, what hope can he offer my thousands of Jewish constituents on the prospects of peace in the middle east, security for Israel, freedom from terror and a viable two-state solution?

Tony Blair: I hope that it will be possible to use the opportunity of an election for a new Palestinian leader, the disengagement from Gaza and parts of the west bank, which is the programme announced by the Israeli Government, and our determination to ensure that we work with the Palestinians and others in the international community to put together the political, economic and security institutions of a viable state. I hope that it will be possible by a combination of those means to reinvigorate the middle east peace process. As I have said on many occasions in the past few weeks, and I repeat again, I do not think that there is a more pressing political challenge facing the world today.

Charles Kennedy: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends completely with the expressions of outrage at the wicked murder of Margaret Hassan.
	To return to the Child Support Agency resignation this morning, as well as the computerisation problems to which the Prime Minister rightly referred, there is of course the fact that the Government have been changing the specifications, which has added to the problems. As the CSA is as we speak leaderless, the staff are bound to be demoralised and the agency is failing in its functions, will the Prime Minister as a matter of urgency scrap the Child Support Agency and transfer its purpose directly to the Inland Revenue, so that it can get payments to those most in need?

Tony Blair: I am not sure that transferring to the Inland Revenue is the answer to the problem. The reason for the difficulty is that people have to pay child support when they have an obligation to support children on divorce or the separation of partners. The CSA was established by the previous Government in order to try to ensure that the system worked in an effective and fair way without the need for long drawn-out court hearings. Unfortunately, that system did not work. I do not in any way minimise the difficulties under the new system that we are introducing. It is not acceptable, as I said a moment or two ago. However, there will be new leadership of the Child Support Agency, we will have to sort out the computer programme that has been the cause of the present problems, and we will then have to ensure that as many people as possible get on to the new scheme, which is a lot simpler and more effective.

Charles Kennedy: I still hope that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister might look at the idea that I have mentioned.
	Talking of new leadership, there will have to be a new leader of the National Assessment Agency, too, as its chief executive has resigned this morning. He has resigned because of a three-month delay in publishing key stage 3 English results. Is not that also indicative of the central problem of this Government? They set unrealistic targets, the quangos and agencies cannot deliver, and the recipients on the front line, after seven years of Labour in power, are left languishing.

Tony Blair: It is extraordinary of the right hon. Gentleman to say that we should not have testing and exams for pupils. An independent authority is needed to carry that out, and it has done so. I simply point out to him that it found that there was not any problem, either with the quality of marking or with the results. There has been a problem in the system, which is the reason for the resignation. We cannot have it both ways—either arm's-length agencies carry out these functions, or they are carried out direct from Government. I will certainly look at his suggestion that we transfer child support to the Inland Revenue, but it is highly unlikely that doing so would cause anything other than consternation among recipients and the Inland Revenue alike.

Ian Lucas: Yesterday, the directors of Wrexham football club, the home of football in Wales, announced that they were putting the club into administration. This Saturday, thousands of football supporters across Britain are setting aside their tribal loyalties to wear red for Wrexham. What can the Prime Minister offer community football clubs that are again under huge pressure from predatory company developers, and what can he do to improve the situation?

Tony Blair: As ever, I am helpfully briefed that it is not for the Government to determine how a football club is owned and that there are many different models of ownership. I do not suppose that that is a great help to my hon. Friend or to Wrexham football club, but I obviously wish them well. Many supporters want to ensure that their club is owned and based in the local community, but he will accept that this is not a matter for me to intervene in personally.

Simon Thomas: With an average household income in Ceredigion of less than £19,000 a year and an average house price of £160,000, my constituency is now the least affordable place to buy and live in Wales, and is the fifth least affordable in the United Kingdom. As interest rates are not delivering affordability for young people, what other steps can the Prime Minister take to help young people access decent and affordable homes?

Tony Blair: Housing in Wales is the responsibility of the Assembly, but we have put a substantial amount of additional money into housing, and affordable rural housing in particular. Of course, the situation is difficult, because there is a strong economy and the fact that more people are in work—unemployment figures are again down today, and are at their lowest level for 30 years—puts pressure on housing. However, interest rates—again, under this Government, they are at their lowest for several decades—are important in enabling people to afford their homes. How the money that we put into affordable housing is distributed is a matter for the Assembly.

Ian Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency fell by 13 per cent. last year; that the Clyde shipyards are well on the way to having the biggest order book in living memory; and that I am still not happy? Will he try to make me happier by ensuring that the naval orders come in a steady flow to avoid boom and bust in the yards? In particular, will he ensure that the MARS—Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability—ships order is placed in such a way that periods of decline are avoided, and will he place those ships in Britain?

Tony Blair: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that Govan has good prospects for future work on aircraft carriers, and is involved in the building of the first T-54 destroyers, offering stability for the work force well into the next decade. I also hope that his constituency will benefit from other projects currently in the concept phase. He is right that unemployment is down in his constituency—it is down in every single constituency in the country and 2 million more people are in work. The new deal has helped more than 1 million people into work, which is why we should continue with the policies of stability and maintain the new deal, not scrap it as the Opposition want to do.

Michael Howard: From today, the Metropolitan police will have to fill in a form every time that they stop someone in the street—not stop and search, just stop. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much of a police officer's time will be wasted on this latest piece of political correctness?

Tony Blair: The provision, as I understand it, was introduced after the Lawrence inquiry to ensure that police powers, which we have increased, are exercised in a way that keeps the confidence of the local community.

Michael Howard: The Police Federation estimates that it will take seven minutes on average to fill in the new form. The police will be assessed on it under the police performance assessment framework, affectionately known by the police as PFAF. From today, if a police officer in London wants to stop a gang of half a dozen yobs in the street, it will take the best part of an hour to fill in the forms. Does the Prime Minister think that that will encourage the police to stop gangs in the street?

Tony Blair: First, as a result of the Government introducing dispersal orders and other measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, we are able to take action against gangs of yobs in the street for the first time. Secondly, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that crime in London is down and police numbers up. We remember that when he was Home Secretary he cut the numbers of police, and crime under the last Conservative Government doubled.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that when I was Home Secretary, crime fell by 18 per cent., and either of his Home Secretaries would give their eye teeth for that record. The Prime Minister told the country in his manifesto that he would
	"relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens".
	Is this what he meant? Should the police not be doing their job, not filling in forms? We have said that we will scrap this latest piece of politically correct nonsense. Why will he not?

Tony Blair: For the reason that I have just given. The measure was introduced after the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. It was considered necessary in order to ensure that there was proper support in local communities for policing. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on policing in London can be that good, since he was telling us a few weeks ago that he went out in Brixton for the night and could not see a single police officer. Let me say to him:
	"Burglary is down, robbery is down, graffiti wiped away, abandoned cars towed away. Central Brixton is a safer, happier place than it was a couple of years ago . . . Call it what you like, but it works."
	Not my words—the words of the shadow Chancellor.

Michael Howard: And how does the Prime Minister think that the police in Brixton will be able to continue to make the progress they have made, if they have to spend the best part of an hour filling in forms every time they stop a gang of half a dozen people in the street? I have now asked him four times the question about the forms that the police have to fill in. On each of those occasions he has failed to answer it. Why, for once, does he not face up to the nonsense of the requirements that his Government are imposing on the police?

Tony Blair: I have not failed to answer the question. I have answered it. I have explained why we think it is necessary to do that, following the Lawrence inquiry. An important part of policing in London is to police with the support of the local community. In relation to policing in general, in London and elsewhere, there are record numbers of police, and they are now supported by community support officers who, incidentally, were opposed by the Opposition. We are reintroducing neighbourhood policing throughout London. Crime in London is down, not up, and as the commander in Brixton said:
	"I think Mr. Howard is out of touch . . . Maybe 10 or 20 years ago his comments would have been more accurate but there are now more police in Brixton. There are no more no-go areas and things have improved tremendously."
	I prefer his words to those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or indeed my own.

Hon. Members: More.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Anne Picking: I thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be a hard act to follow, but plainly not.
	My right hon. Friend was contacted this morning by a constituent of mine, Sandra Stalker, who wanted to thank me and the Government for her winter fuel allowance. Will he reassure her and millions of others that he has no plans to abolish or reduce that necessary measure to tackle fuel poverty?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue with the winter fuel payment and with the free television licence for the over-75s, which were dismissed at the time by the Conservatives as patronising gimmicks. For many of our constituents, the £200 winter fuel allowance is of help. It goes alongside the measures that have been taken to boost energy conservation, particularly in pensioners' homes, leading to a situation where far fewer pensioners fear the choice between heating and eating.

Alistair Burt: The prisons ombudsman's report into the fire at Yarl's Wood removals centre in my constituency was published yesterday. It blames ill-thought-out policies and the setting of unachievable targets for leading to the design and construction of a building that was unfit for purpose and in which the many hundreds of detainees whom it housed might have lost their lives. Who does the Prime Minister think is accountable and responsible for the policy failures that led to the incident, which the ombudsman himself described as a hair's breadth from tragedy?

Tony Blair: Of course we take responsibility for Yarl's Wood. It is necessary to ensure that we have more detention space. We are increasing detention space for the obvious reason that there is concern about asylum claims in particular—we have processed 80 per cent. of asylum claims in two months. Despite yesterday's rise, the number of asylum applications is now down to near the level that we inherited in 1997. We have taken on board the criticisms about Yarl's Wood and are ensuring that both the refurbished Yarl's Wood and other detention space complies with the recommendations in the report.

Piara S Khabra: I welcome the Prime Minister on his return from the United States. He brought back some encouraging signals from his meeting with Mr. Bush on the middle east peace process. However, may I draw his attention to the dangers of global warming? In light of both a recent study showing a record rate of warming in the Arctic and Russia's decision to sign the Kyoto protocol, will he confirm that he was able to prompt Mr. Bush to take greater action on global warming to save the world from environmental disaster?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of climate change and global warming. That is why we have made climate change one of the two priorities for our G8 chairmanship next year, along with Africa. I spoke at length to President Bush about that matter and hope that we can work with America and other G8 partners to draw up proposals for the G8 summit next year to allow us to make progress on that issue again. The Kyoto protocol will come into effect as a result of Russia's ratification, but my hon. Friend and others rightly point out that even if Kyoto were implemented fully, it would effectively stabilise emissions, whereas we need to reduce them considerably.

John Wilkinson: What action will the Prime Minister take on the unsurprising but shocking news that, for the tenth year running, the European Court of Auditors has failed to sign off the accounts of the European Union? Are the Government happy to acquiesce in that sorry state of affairs? Is it not about time that the United Kingdom stopped throwing good taxpayers' money after bad and did something about the issue, rather than seeing whistleblowers being fired?

Tony Blair: We will, of course, continue to insist that the European Commission and the European Union come into compliance with the auditors' requirements. It is worth pointing out that although shortcomings were identified, they do not affect all the funds that are paid into the European Union or that come back to us. On the other hand, we have been pressing the new Commission to take far tougher action.

Wayne David: I know that the Prime Minister is very pleased with the unemployment figures announced this morning, and so he should be, because they are at a record low—nothing shows more clearly that Labour is working for Britain. Does he realise that if we are to achieve long-term economic success in this country, we must build an enterprise culture, especially among our young people? Will he indicate his plans to build on the success of this week's enterprise week?

Tony Blair: It is important to recognise the extra investment in education that is going into our schools. We have boosted investment in each pupil by a significant amount beyond what we inherited. We are also setting up business and enterprise specialist schools, which will help too. The child trust fund, which is just starting, will make a big difference by giving children a nest egg for the future. In addition, the proposals on child care will enable parents to balance work and family life to a far better extent.

Crown Post Office (Newton Abbot)

Richard Younger-Ross: What plans he has to visit the Crown post office in Newton Abbot.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is a shame, because the Post Office proposes to close the Newton Abbot Crown office and the sub-post offices in Queen street and at Keyberry and to replace them with one franchise given to Costcutter. Will the Prime Minister condemn the Post Office for refusing to allow any other local business to bid for that franchise, and will he support the commercial workers union in asking for the sell-off and franchising—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will he support the commercial workers union in asking for the suspension of the sell-off and franchising until the Trade and Industry Committee has completed its report—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Richard Younger-Ross: —and the Post Office has completed its negotiations with the union?

Tony Blair: It is not correct to equate closures with franchises. More than 280 of the 550 directly managed post offices have been successfully franchised, and I understand that there are high customer satisfaction levels with that. The problem that we face is quite simple. The combined losses of those 550 directly managed post offices are more than £70 million a year, and we simply cannot afford to sustain those losses. We are putting hundreds of millions of pounds into supporting post offices, but there is a limit to that.
	I understand, incidentally, that discussions are continuing between the Post Office and the Communication Workers Union to try to resolve this issue.

Engagements

William Cash: President Chirac has insisted that Europe should become a superpower to counter the United States. The Prime Minister himself has said that he wants Europe to be a superpower. When will he accept that this complete contradiction of his commitment to an undemocratic European constitution, with its defence and foreign policy, runs counter to our proven alliance with the United States? When will he discover that he cannot ride both horses at the same time?

Tony Blair: It is extraordinary, given that the hon. Gentleman was down to ask a question, that I have briefings on education, crime, health and jobs, although it was perfectly obvious that there was only one subject he would ever ask about: Europe. I really must complain about those briefings.

William Cash: Answer the question, then.

Tony Blair: I will answer the question. I think that this country is lucky to have two major strong alliances—one with the United States of America and the other as a leading member of the European Union. It is important that we keep both alliances intact, because they are both important for the future of this country. I can think of many other countries around the world that would be delighted to have two such strong alliances. It is time, frankly, and with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, that we started to celebrate, not denigrate, that fact.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend take time out of his busy schedule to visit the £15.5 million OpTIC optoelectronic incubation and research centre at the St. Asaph business park in my constituency? That technology centre will result in 24 new high-quality, high-tech companies being created every two years. What help can be given to spread that technology around the rest of Wales and the rest of the UK?
	May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be hanging around for the next few minutes for my ten-minute Bill at half past 12?

Tony Blair: I cannot give an absolutely firm commitment on that, but I am sure that it is a great Bill, whatever its subject.
	My hon. Friend is right. Investment in science and technology is a major part of the Government's programme to make this country the No. 1 capital in the world for the development of science and technology and businesses associated with it. We are in a strong position and we could be stronger still. The facility in my hon. Friend's constituency is not the only one in the country. They are important, and we need to grow and to build them because they have a direct impact on our future prosperity.

David Trimble: I welcome today's meetings on Northern Ireland but does the Prime Minister appreciate the puzzlement of people there, given that 12 months after the election and more than two months since he declared at Leeds castle that he had virtually got the issue sorted out, nothing has happened? Will he get a grip and end the drift that someone somewhere clearly wants to prolong?

Tony Blair: I hope that people in Northern Ireland are not too puzzled. Frankly, by now, they should be used to the stops and starts of a difficult and arduous process. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work in the peace process, which should always be stated. I hope that the talks today will be productive. Although it is taking slightly longer than I anticipated, we are trying to resolve the outstanding issues. I think he would acknowledge that, provided that it is absolutely clear—it must be—from anyone who wants to sit in the Government of Northern Ireland that paramilitary violence is ended once and for all in all its forms, there is no reason why the Unionist community should not sit in an Executive with other parties, including the republican party, to govern Northern Ireland in a devolved way. I greatly hope that, in the next few days—it may be a little longer—we will make progress to ensure that, on the republican side, there is a complete end to violence, and on the Unionist side an acceptance that if that is so there should be power sharing.

Points of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to motion 18 on today's Order Paper, which is entitled, "Application of the Parliament Act to the Hunting Bill"? It has been signed by 20 hon. Members from all parties representing both sides of the argument. Would you prefer to give time for that to be debated today?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can answer Sir Patrick and then there will be no need for further points of order. Those matters are for the Government, not the Speaker. [Interruption.] Perhaps I can clarify matters. Debating time in the House is for the Government, not the Speaker, to determine.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and 18 of their colleagues who were able to get into the Lobby with them voted against an outright ban on hunting. Is there any precedent in the long history of the Parliament Act for it to be used to force through a Bill, against which the holders of the great offices of state and the leader of the Government have voted?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members' voting records are a matter for them, not the Speaker.

James Gray: What about precedent?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not worry about the Parliament Act. That is for me to worry about and look after—[Hon. Members: "And us."] Of course, and I look after the interests of all hon. Members, especially those of Back Benchers.

Claire Ward: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Lady last because she has a different point of order.

Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may know that the board of inquiry into the deaths of the six brave policemen who were killed at Majar al-kabir last year reports today. The Secretary of State for Defence will conduct a press conference to discuss the report at four o'clock in the Ministry of Defence. With great respect, I have shown a deep interest in the matter, given that one of my constituents was murdered in the incident. Other hon. Members have also done so. At the very least, the Secretary of State should have the guts to come here, make a statement and be questioned properly in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should have temperate language in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman can always ask me for an urgent question. He can also raise the matter in other ways, perhaps through an Adjournment debate. I will consider the matter, but it is not for me to decide whether the Secretary of State goes to a press conference; that is a judgment for the right hon. Gentleman.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened to what you rightly said about the Parliament Act but would you also accept that, when it is time for you to make the decision about its application, you will clearly take into consideration the position of the Prime Minister and leading members of his Cabinet in voting against that which the Act would impose on Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: The House makes these decisions, the House passed the Act and the Act, in a sense, gives me certain instructions. It would be wrong of me to listen to the Prime Minister or anyone else in this matter.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister notified you that he wishes to come to the House to correct what he said during Prime Minister's Question Time, when he engaged in a highly selective quotation of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about policing in Brixton? If he had correctly quoted him, he would have pointed out that both my right hon. Friend and I noted in Brixton that the action in Brixton town centre had pushed crime into the housing estates and into the immediate periphery, which were suffering as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done well to put the record straight through a point of order.

Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise with you and the House an abuse of parliamentary privilege by the Liberal Democrat party in Watford, which has deceitfully used the portcullis of the House for cheap party political purposes. The matter has been raised with the Serjeant at Arms, who has reported it to the Liberal Democrats in the House and ordered that the abuse cease immediately. Will you condemn the Liberal Democrats for this abuse of the Crown privilege, bestowed on Members of the House and Officers of the House in fulfilling their duties, and will you remind them of the rules?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can remind all hon. Members of the rules, but I will not go as far as condemning any political party. The Crown portcullis—and other emblems of the House—should be used only in direct connection with communications and publications originating from the House. It should not be shown on any publicity material associated with any individual political parties, and that includes the content of party websites. I am aware that the Crown portcullis emblem has been withdrawn from the website in question. The use of stationery has been dealt with by the Serjeant at Arms.

Vehicle Servicing Industry (Regulation)

Chris Ruane: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the vehicle servicing industry.
	There are approximately 25 million cars on the road in the UK. The garage servicing industry is worth an estimated £9.8 billion a year—around £350 per car. The cost of shoddy repairs is estimated to cost UK car drivers £170 million per annum. The questions I pose today are, are we getting value for money, are our cars being serviced to the highest standards, and is safety being compromised?
	In dealing with this issue I have worked very closely with Which? and the Consumers Association. Last week, Which? published the results of an undercover investigation. It took 48 cars to 48 garages across the country and asked them to fix relatively minor faults such as worn brake discs, and then it asked independent, trained experts to check the quality of the work. Seventy-three per cent. of the work undertaken was unsatisfactory and 67 per cent. of the garages that Which? took the cars to, failed to pick up the faults. Which? has conducted other research in the past into MOT servicing, and only eight of 36 garages performed the tests correctly.
	The report's findings are nothing new and, although the figures are high, erratic quality in the servicing of vehicles is not a recent phenomenon. The public, consumer organisations and Government agencies have complained about it for decades. The latest investigations by the Office of Fair Trading and by trading standards authorities reveal some gross abuses of consumer confidence. Interestingly, the problem appears as endemic in the franchise dealer workshops as in the small independent garages. Despite the efforts of vehicle manufacturers to get their franchisees to observe quality standards, they have failed to do so.
	Most car users think that, if they take their car to a recognised franchisee—they often pay over the odds to do so—they will get a good deal. That is not always the case. On the other hand, I do not want to condemn all garages or tar them all with the same brush. Personally, I have received excellent service in my constituency from a one-man operator, Jack Frodsham, who serviced my car for many years, and from a franchise operator, KA Ford, which gave me some expert and timely advice last week that saved me more than £600. I congratulate those garages.
	The latest attempt to tackle poor standards was the good garage scheme, which is also known as the CarWise scheme and has been promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry. The proposal, which is based on codes of conduct, self-regulation and asking the consumer to distinguish between good and bad, was welcomed by consumer groups and hailed as a way of sorting out the mess of garage servicing without legislation. Unfortunately, the scheme received a mixed reception in industry circles, and the industry finally withdrew, refusing to fund it.
	The scheme would have cost about £10 million to set up—only 35p for every car on the road in the UK. The industry claimed that the consumer would be up in arms about having to pay that 35p per year and per car for the service. Which? could not believe it, so it conducted further research with 1,100 people to find out what they were getting for their money and what they wanted from a mechanic. Some 93 per cent. of the people surveyed said that they would be concerned if they thought that their car was being serviced by a mechanic without suitable qualifications. People said that they wanted to be able to trust their mechanic. In order to get that trust, the industry has to listen to what people want: some kind of decent standard that is nationally recognised. Some 87 per cent. of those surveyed told Which? that they would pay extra for an approved technician to work on their car, and 67 per cent. said that they would travel further to get their car serviced by someone who was suitably qualified. With the consumer prepared to pay more and travel further for good customer service and a professional repair, it is unclear why the industry has not responded more positively.
	Following the decision to scrap the good garage scheme, the Government did the only thing they could, and encouraged the industry to develop a code of practice and work with the OFT and its consumer code approval scheme. While some societies and organisations, such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, have joined the scheme, Which? informs me that the Retail Motor Industry Federation, whose members are mainly independent repairers, withdrew its code, claiming that the OFT kept changing its criteria and the goalposts. The criteria are relatively low anyway, but, by signing up, a trade body can demonstrate its commitment to standards and good consumer service. I hope that the RMIF will reconsider its position following this debate.
	There are many in the industry who support regulation and licensing. Philip Branley of the insurers Allianz Cornhill said:
	"In principle we would be in favour of a national licensing scheme. Anything that improves the standards and enhances consumer confidence has to be a good thing."
	The automotive trade magazine representing body repairers and small independent garages conducted e-polling and found that 82 per cent. of its trade readership supported licensing under a mandatory scheme. Obviously, there is concern about who will pay to set up and monitor a scheme. As I have asserted, however, the public have stated that they are prepared to pay more, as long as they are guaranteed quality.
	The Government are also helping out in other ways, such as improving competencies with the modern apprenticeship scheme. I believe that 7,000 apprentices are currently being trained to be mechanics. I point to the centre of automotive technology in my constituency—a £1.5 million project in Rhyl college aimed at giving young people, both male and female, the chance to gain these 21st century skills in the car servicing industry. Many in the industry welcome that help and realise that competency is the core of improving consumer confidence. Some, such as the Institute of the Motor Industry, Automotive Advantage and several dealer groups and manufacturers, already operate a code of practice and a raft of qualifications to help train mechanics. Their positive input should be recognised and encouraged by the Government.
	Regulation has been introduced successfully in other industries and sectors. The gas installation industry, for instance, is now covered by CORGI registration, and in the aerospace industry mechanics are trained to the highest standards. Today's automated, computerised cars are a different beast from those of 30 years ago. The knowledge and skills required to service such cars are of a far higher standard, and deserve recognition and respect.
	Failure to regulate could have tragic consequences. In the words of Alan Hodgkinson, chief executive of body repair network ABS, who supports regulation and licensing,
	"The failure of just one incorrectly fitted ball joint could lead to a multiple pile up on a motorway causing many deaths."
	He added that
	"Government would have to step in overnight with compulsory licensing and the debate would be over."
	I do not believe that we should have to wait for that accident to happen. I believe that the Bill should be adopted, and that the motor vehicle servicing industry should be regulated and licensed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Chris Ruane, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mark Tami, Linda Perham, Mrs. Betty Williams, Mr. Martyn Jones, Albert Owen, Ian Lucas, Gareth Thomas, Mr. Gordon Prentice and Jim Sheridan.

Vehicle Servicing Industry (Regulation)

Chris Ruane accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the vehicle servicing industry: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19  November, and to be printed [Bill 183].

Civil Contingencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following proceedings shall apply to the Civil Contingencies Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19th January 2004.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.   Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2.   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Lords amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments 49 to 51 One hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Amendments 41, 42 and 46 One hour and 45 minutes after the commencement of those proceedings. 
			 Amendments 7 and 56 Two and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
			 Remaining amendments Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3.   Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put.
	4.   The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a   conclusion one hour after their commencement—[Paul Clark.]
	The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Civil Contingencies Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 34
	 — 
	Commencement

Lords amendment: No. 49.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 50 and 51 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Ruth Kelly: These amendments provide the vehicle for bringing part 2 of the Bill, on emergency powers, to an end three years after it has been brought into force. The Government are unable to agree with that approach. The idea of sunsetting part 2 of the Bill was originally raised by the Joint Committee that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the then draft Bill. The Government in their response made it clear that a sunset clause is relatively unusual and requires careful consideration. The issue was discussed at some length on Report and Third Reading in the other place.
	The arguments against sunsetting are compelling. Sunsetting legislation is appropriate when the powers it contains are expected no longer to be needed after a certain period, or if their use should be reviewed by Parliament. This Bill does not meet either criterion. Time-limiting the Bill is clearly not appropriate. No one believes that emergencies will stop happening in three years' time. If part 2 of the Bill were to be repealed, something else would simply have to be put in its place. The purpose of review by Parliament on a triennial basis, it is suggested, is that—given the nature of the powers—Parliament should assess whether it is appropriate for them to continue to exist, in the light of the way in which they have been exercised. I understand that that was the main intent behind the amendment.
	Provision for regular review by Parliament may be appropriate where the exercise of powers is of legitimate parliamentary interest but their exercise is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the intent being that some powers—given their nature—should not simply be handed over to a Government to exercise indefinitely in the manner of their choosing. That argument, however, does not apply to part 2 of the Bill. Any exercise of the powers it confers will undergo detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
	I would also question the utility of review every three years, given that part 2 is a last resort option for dealing with only the most serious of emergencies, for which existing legislation proves insufficient. It is not intended for regular use. It is worth noting for example that there was a 29-year gap between the uses of the powers under the present legislation. It simply would not have been necessary or sensible to review the Emergency Powers Act 1920 every three years during that period.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister says—and she is right, because clause 27 applies—that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations. Will Parliament be able to amend the regulations through the process of scrutiny?

Ruth Kelly: Yes. In a totally exceptional provision, it will be possible for Parliament to amend the regulations—for example, to impose additional limitations and constraints on their use by providing that the use of the powers should come to an end after a certain date.
	Emergency regulations would be laid before Parliament as soon as was reasonably practical, once they had been made, and would require the assent of Parliament to continue in force. Any further set of regulations made after the lapse of the regulations would also have to go through the same process of parliamentary scrutiny.

Richard Shepherd: The Minister talks of detailed scrutiny, but the regulations would be in the form of an Order in Council and subject to the statutory instrument process. The detailed scrutiny would have to take place in 90 minutes. Or does the Minister know something that the House and the Standing Orders do not?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman raises an important and interesting point. I said that I would expect detailed scrutiny by Parliament to take place, and I accept that 90 minutes is indeed unlikely to be sufficient to debate regulations of such importance. It is likely that in the time of such an emergency there would be a call for a major debate on the subject of the crisis and the Government would respond to that and provide the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman may question why we have not chosen to amend the Standing Orders to reflect that expectation. I would argue that it would not be appropriate to complicate the Standing Orders with varying procedures for different kinds of regulations. However, I place it clearly on the record that we would expect detailed scrutiny of the regulations to take place.

Oliver Heald: As the Minister will know, it has been thought right to have sunsetting for a small class of provisions, including the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—an obvious example—and the Terrorism Act 2000, which repeated the provisions that used to be in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Given that the Bill proposes to give, rightly, the most draconian powers to Ministers in an emergency, it surely also falls into that category and should be treated seriously.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is not alone in trying to draw parallels between the Bill and the Acts that he mentioned. Indeed, several of their Lordships also attempted to draw such parallels. They argued that because a review mechanism was appropriate in those contexts, it would be appropriate in this case. I beg to disagree. The powers in this Bill are not intended to be used on a regular basis. The powers in the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny when exercised. We are dealing with a different type of Bill: it is an enabling Bill and the exercise of the powers it contains would be subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. The other Acts that have been mentioned grant ongoing powers that can be evaluated after a certain period of time has elapsed.

Richard Allan: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the nature of the scrutiny of the regulations once they are invoked by a Minister, we are concerned that those debates will be focused on the regulations before the House, rather than on the wider principle of whether the powers should have been used at all. We seek a review or a sunset provision because we want a review of the legislation as a whole, rather than the specific regulations that may have been invoked at a particular moment.

Ruth Kelly: It is worth bearing in mind the fact that we envisage the powers being used only for the most serious situations. It is unthinkable that any emergency that such powers would be connected with would not be debated in full while that emergency was taking place, including the Government's handling of the situation and the use of emergency powers.

Oliver Heald: Of course the particular circumstances that arise would probably be debated, and the particular measures taken would also be debated, albeit ex post facto and at not very great length. The point that is being made—I hope that the Minister will address it—is that the powers and their appropriateness to the situation would not be the subject of such a debate. That is what we would like to see scrutinised every three years. What is wrong with that?

Ruth Kelly: The true parallel to draw here is between the exercise of the regulations and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000, not between the Bill and those Acts. They do not all fall into the same category. The regulations would be subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny and, as I was in the process of telling the House, I cannot conceive of their being used in practice without a full parliamentary debate or without scrutiny after the event of how they had been exercised in practice and of whether greater limitation should have been imposed on their use. There is no real parallel between the Bill and the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, as this is a purely enabling Bill.

Richard Shepherd: But of course, the underlying anxiety is the very definition of what constitutes an emergency, which lies in the Government's hands and in the hands of the parliamentary majority that the Government normally have. With such a very loose definition of what constitutes an emergency, with the powers being so enormous and with the rights of scrutiny dependent on the Government—not necessarily this Government, because of course the Minister is arguing for a permanent Act—we want the greatest possible clarity about why all that is appropriate.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that not only does Parliament have the power to amend the regulations, which is an exceptional provision and additional safeguard that strengthens the robustness of the scrutiny process, but the emergency regulations contain their own sunset clause: they lapse 30 days after they are made and fresh parliamentary approval must be required if further regulations are to be made. One could speculate about the composition of a Parliament that would somehow override the rule of law and the detailed safeguards in the Bill, but I would argue that that would be a function of the will of Parliament and the extremism of Members of Parliament, rather than anything to do with the functions of the Bill.
	The Bill contains far more safeguards than its predecessors. It contains provision for detailed parliamentary scrutiny and amendment by Parliament of its provisions. It also contains in-built sunset clauses on the use of the regulations. In summary, the Government simply cannot agree to these Lords amendments. We are replacing a long-standing, generic framework that is entirely unsuitable for sunsetting, and effective arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny are already set out in the Bill in relation to the regulations made under it.

Oliver Heald: The Government have improved the Bill in the other place, and I pay tribute to the work of my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe, who led for the Opposition in the other place and was able to persuade the Government to do some things that I had found it very difficult to persuade them to do in the House. She has obviously got some silky skills that I have not yet acquired. It was good that the Government were prepared to tighten the definition of an emergency. Although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the definition is now better.
	The Government now recognise the role of the voluntary sector—something that we have pressed for throughout our debates in Committee. The test for urgent directions under clauses 7 and 8 is more objective. That is good. Clause 7 directions will be made in writing—something that we pressed for in Committee. Again, that was a good change. The removal of clause 19(5)(a), which would have allowed a Minister to treat certain situations as coming under the definition of an emergency irrespective of whether they came within the categories set out in the Bill, and the recognition of the role of parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of emergency regulations under clause 22 were all to the good.
	On these Lords amendments, however, we wish the Government to go further. In the other place, my noble Friend argued that clause 34 should contain the three new subsections in Lords amendment No. 50, to provide sunset provisions for part 2. After three years, part 2 would fall unless both Houses agreed to renew it, but if they agreed to a renewal, it would last for another three years. We are used to that approach in the context of emergency powers.
	Despite the Minister's comments, it was agreed from the outset that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 should be subject to sunset provisions, as it contains some draconian powers in part 4 to allow the indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals suspected of involvement with various terrorist bodies. Part 4 of that Act requires annual renewal by Parliament, and the provisions will expire altogether on 10 November 2006. Similarly, with the Northern Ireland situation, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 provided for annual approval by Parliament, and those provisions have been carried into the Terrorism Act 2000, so there are precedents.

Douglas Hogg: The Army Act 1992.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend mentions the Army Act 1992, and there are others. In fact, the Government are committed to such procedures. In a document that deals with the agenda for the future of regulation in this country, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office said:
	"as part of their better regulation agenda, the Government are committed to using sunset clauses where appropriate."
	Not only are there precedents, but the Government claim to have a policy to promote such provisions. We first made the proposal for a sunset provision in Committee. We have suggested various lengths of time that might be appropriate. The Government have refused to agree.
	The powers in part 2 are draconian and warrant a sunset provision. We are not saying, as the Minister suggested, that civil contingencies legislation may no longer be necessary in three years' time, but the Minister acknowledges that, over time, the powers needed to tackle such situations change. That is why the Bill has been introduced. Given the effects of such a Bill on liberty, it is only right that the latest circumstances should be considered. After all, the reason why the Government introduced the Bill is: events and new circumstances.
	Given that the Government accept that events and new circumstances can prompt and require a new response, it seems wrong that they are not prepared to follow that principle by accepting a sunset provision of the kind that we suggest. We will continue to press for such a provision to be included in the Bill, and I hope that Ministers, even in the short time available, will reflect on that and consider the seriousness of the powers that they are taking and how necessary it is to review them in due course.

Richard Allan: I would echo the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about some of the improvements that have been made to the Bill, but we continue to have some concerns. The Liberal Democrats were open-minded in the debate that took place in the House of Lords. My colleague, Lord Avebury, made it clear that we were looking for some kind of review procedure, although not necessarily as proposed in the Lords amendment with which the Government now seek to disagree, but that we would not be happy if the provisions did not contain an ability independently to review the way in which the powers may be used. Unfortunately, the Minister in the House of Lords gave us nothing, so we made it clear that in lieu of there being no alternative, we would vote with the Conservatives to ensure that we kept the issue alive.
	We suggested as an alternative the kind of procedure that is followed under the Terrorism Act 2000, whereby my noble Friend Lord Carlile has a statutory responsibility to review some of the provisions used under that Act. That is very useful. It has kept issues alive and on the political agenda that we fear would not otherwise have been kept alive so forcefully if the procedure had simply involved a Home Office Minister reporting on the powers under that Act. So we seek to support the principle of independent review in resisting the Government's attempts to remove the Lords amendments.
	The Minister refers to the fact that part 2 should be used only in extremis, and we agree. We believe that it should be used in very few circumstances. Having gone to all the trouble to get the legislation on to the statute book, I for one would be delighted if it were 29 years before it is used. I would love to see the provisions not used at all, and to return on a triennial basis with a report simply making a nil return to say that the powers had not been used and that the legislation could therefore be allowed to continue.
	Our fear, however, is that the powers in the Bill will not be used only in extremis. Ministers might be tempted to use them rather than go through the normal legislative procedures. Even in a case as serious as the attacks that took place in the United States on 11   September, we were able through the normal parliamentary procedures to introduce the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It was contentious, but it got through the House in reasonable time. Similarly, we responded to the foot and mouth crisis with legislation that is specifically about how we deal with animals in such a situation and that, I hope, will pre-empt the need for emergency regulations. Parliament has enacted legislation ahead of any potential crisis.
	We want that approach to continue. The normal approach to an emergency should be either to foresee the emergency and have the legislation on the statute book so that the part 2 powers are not needed, or to come to the House to introduce legislation in the normal way, again so that the part 2 powers are not needed.
	We believe that there might be a temptation—perhaps out of laziness or because Ministers do not want to use up their valuable slots for pre-emptive legislation—to fall back on the powers in the Bill. If such a mindset takes hold, the powers may be used inappropriately as an earlier port of call than they should be. We see them very much as a last resort that should be used in extremis. The triennial review proposed in the amendment would be a good way to address those genuine concerns.
	If, as the Minister suggested, the powers were not used at all, the process involved in the amendment would be very speedy. The Government would say that they had not used the powers and the House would simply renew the legislation and provide the powers for the next three years. Off we would go. If the Government had used the powers, the amendments would allow us to hold an independent session in which all we would debate is whether the powers had been used appropriately. We would not be confronted by an emergency at the time of the debate.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a great deal of thought has been given recently to how legislation should be dealt with? The report of the Constitution Committee in another place proposes much more post-legislative scrutiny. If we are dealing with draconian powers such as those in the Bill, they are the obvious candidates for such an approach. A sunset clause is the obvious way of forcing post-legislative scrutiny.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman has expressed my sentiments effectively. We are at one on this. We are seeking to find a way of monitoring the Bill, because it is potentially so powerful. Because we fear that it will be used more frequently than is strictly necessary, we want to be able to return to it. The Minister suggests that we can do that when we are confronted with an emergency or discussing the detail of regulations that are there to deal with that emergency. However, to suggest that we will be calmly stepping back and reviewing all the possible legislative options that the Government could have used instead of the emergency legislation is fantastical. We will not do that. When the House is confronted with an emergency and a Minister says that we need emergency regulations, the reality is that the regulations will go through using the Government's majority. There simply will not be the scope to take the constitutional or long view that we would need to challenge Ministers as to whether they strictly need to use the part 2 powers in the Bill.
	We need the opportunity to return to the powers every three years. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, the advantage of the sunset clause is that it would force such a review in a way that no other provision could. That is a sensible way forward in that it establishes the point of principle that such powers must be scrutinised separately from the debates around specific regulations.

Douglas Hogg: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).
	The Minister conceded—indeed, she had to concede—that sunset clauses are unusual. They are unusual, but so are the powers in the Bill. It would be difficult to imagine a Bill that was more dramatic in the powers that it confers on the Executive. They powers are contained in clause 22(3) which, apart from anything else, states:
	"Emergency may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative".
	The powers extend to
	"the confiscation of property (with or without compensation)",
	the prohibition of movements, the prohibition of assemblies, the deployment of the armed forces, the prohibition of travel, the prohibition of specified activities, disapplying or modifying any enactment, requiring a person or body to act in performance of a function, and so on and so on. In other words, the Bill gives to the Executive of the day powers of a wholly draconian—and I would say authoritarian—character.
	The question is whether we should so conduct ourselves as to leave the Bill in perpetuity on the statute book or give ourselves the opportunity from time to time to review whether such a Bill should be on the statute book. I have no doubt that we should review it from time to time.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made the point—he is entirely right—that Governments may well be moved to use the powers in circumstances that it is difficult to justify as falling strictly within the definition of clause 19. All of us know that Governments like to use powers that exist, and I ask myself whether the Government might not have been willing to use the powers for the confiscation of property without compensation if they had been able to do so when the foot and mouth crisis was at its height.
	One has to ask oneself some uncomfortable questions. The first is, "Do you trust any Government?" or, if one wants to be more particular, "Do you trust this Government?" I remind myself of the circumstances in which we were taken to war in Iraq. We were told facts that turned out not to be accurate. I happen to believe that Ministers knew or ought to have known that they were not accurate, but that is a matter for historians or perhaps an impeachment motion in the House. My point is that to the question, "Do you trust the Government?", the only sensible answer has to be, "No, under no circumstances." If that is true, the House had better equip itself with a mechanism for reviewing the powers.
	We have also asked why we should not have such a mechanism, but I did not hear the answer to that question. I heard lots of evidence of unwillingness, but that is a very different matter. That is not a justification; it is sheer unwillingness.
	Are there any procedural difficulties? No, because Lords amendment No. 50 requires only a positive resolution in both Houses. That would take only an hour or two, but it would enable the political debate to focus on the Bill so that we can ask whether we need a different definition of an emergency, whether particular powers should remain on the statute book, and whether additional safeguards should be incorporated in statutory language. We are being denied that ability.
	The Minister tells us that the regulations have their own inherent sunset clauses. That is true in part, but it will have not escaped her, no doubt sharp, eye that the regulations can be relaid time and time again. The sunset clause of which she spoke is not perhaps as robust a safeguard as she might have hoped that we would believe.
	As you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly cantankerous with age. I find my distrust of Government is becoming more and more intense, especially since Iraq. I would not give any Government—least of all, this Government—the powers that are in this Bill and, in particular, in clause 22. I very much hope that we will have a sunset clause.

Richard Shepherd: The Damascene conversion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has undertaken during his travels through the House illuminates the sky and gives us hope.
	My difficulty with the Minister's words was her response that the measure would be inappropriate in the context of such a Bill. I am especially mindful that the Government have already derogated from the Human Rights Act 1998, which they enacted, and that that derogation may occur if our country faces an emergency that threatens the life of the nation. We are already in a position in which the Government may say that life is threatened, but they have managed their business in the years since that Act came into existence without recourse to the new permanent structure without end that they now want.
	I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) because the Bill is detailed, comprehensive and iron-clad to such an extent that it is inappropriate for a democratic country and a democratic House. The route that he outlined matched my judgment on how emergencies should be dealt with. Legislation on such matters should be introduced on a case-by-case basis and considered in a day, as has often been the case during my time in the House. However, that process requires the danger or peril facing the life of the nation to be self-evident to such an extent that the House will accede to that legislation.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend will remember the old Northern Ireland emergency legislation that had to be renewed annually. Will he remind himself and the House of the fact that the Labour party welcomed the opportunity to oppose that legislation year after year?

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because the propositions of the Government could be tested annually on such occasions and, indeed, the then Opposition made full use of that opportunity.

William Cash: May I amplify my hon. Friend's point because he is anticipating something that I was going to say? Does he agree that the Terrorism Act 2000 supersedes and subsumes the Northern Ireland legislation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred? A feature of this Government is their tendency towards permanence.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is right and his point forms a substantial part of my case. As the Minister well knows, the House unfortunately did not have the opportunity to discuss part 2 of the Bill, so all the powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham cited are, in a sense, strange to a debate in which every hon. Member may speak. We are running at a gallop on the back of Lords amendments, which I shall support, although I think that they are inadequate. That explains why there is great reluctance to accept the Bill in such a permanent form.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will recall that a great raft of amendments was not considered on Report because of the guillotine. The proposal before us was among the amendments that were not considered at the time. Does he agree that it is a sad reflection of the present situation that the other place must do our job?

Richard Shepherd: All that is true. In fact, the situation is worse than my hon. Friend described it, because the whole of part 2 was not considered.

Douglas Hogg: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the inclusion of a sunset clause would allow the House to consider part 2 in detail for the first time? We were denied that opportunity under the guillotine to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred.

Richard Shepherd: That is true. We would be able to consider the provisions after three years, although we have not yet been able to consider them for five minutes. We are considering a piece of primary legislation that will create a framework that will affect the rights for which the House has fought for centuries. We had annual Army Acts so that we could control the supply of money to the Crown to ensure that the Crown could not do that which we did not want. The same important point is relevant to the Bill. The Government should not shrug off our anxieties and complaints. They could bring forward individual pieces of legislation. They could have addressed our point. Although I think that there should be an annual review, I shall gladly support their lordships' amendments.

William Cash: I agree with many of the points that hon. Members have made. The Bill, with its power to deal with enactments with such a broad brush, is Orwellian in its range and depth. The permanence of the arrangements takes us way beyond "1984" into the indefinite future. There are profound reasons why we should object to such infringement of the liberty of the people of this country and Parliament.
	I said that the Terrorism Act 2000 subsumed and superseded the temporary provisions imposed on Northern Ireland under the Acts passed between 1989 and 1996. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) talked about a standing army, he might not have known—although knowing him, I am sure that he did—that his point went straight to the heart of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is regarded as a permanent safeguard, but this Bill will not cover it. No doubt we shall later consider the interaction between the Bill and the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a temporary palliative because it may be amended or repealed, and the Bill of Rights, which any person in this country would regard as the bulwark of our liberty.
	Article 6 of the Bill of Rights says:
	"the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law".
	That was why we required the Army Acts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred. The provision in article 9 is fundamental to the proceedings of the House. It says:
	"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
	The Bill will override the most fundamental aspects of liberty and freedom in this country. As there is not at least a sunset clause to guarantee that the powers be reviewed regularly, I condemn the Bill's provisions for their lack of liberty and permanence and I condemn the intolerant, totalitarian thinking behind them. The Labour party is supposed to be the descendant of Tom Paine and "The Rights of Man". The Bill is a disgrace.

Ruth Kelly: We have had a passionate and interesting debate, although I think that most of the arguments expressed by Conservative Members reflected their fundamental disagreement with the Bill itself, rather than their view that a sunset clause would be the most appropriate way to deal with the situation before us.
	The Bill has been drafted to enable future emergencies to be covered flexibly under it. The provisions are sufficiently flexible to ensure that specific supply systems or facilities may be covered under the definition of an emergency when serious damage to human welfare is threatened. It also allows examples about which we are not yet aware to be addressed. However, specific powers will be contained in regulations issued under the Bill, so any debate on the Bill itself would be only a rerun of our debates throughout its consideration in the House and the other place.

Richard Allan: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that a debate on the Bill some three, six or nine years after it has come into force—after which we might know about circumstances in which it was used—would be different from today's debate, because we are currently discussing our fears due to the fact that we do not know the way in which the Bill will be used? We are asking for the opportunity to debate the Bill after we know how it has been used in practice.

Ruth Kelly: The Bill itself does not restrict individual liberty. It is the provisions made by the regulations that may infringe or restrict civil liberties. I have outlined the safeguards, which are in the Bill and include detailed parliamentary scrutiny under the regulations.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady is right when she says that individual prohibitions are contained in regulations, but she is bound to concede that the powers are created in clause 22(3). Whether Ministers should be able, through regulations, to do this and that does lie on the face of the Bill. It is that which we need to review.

Ruth Kelly: The Bill, which we have debated for a while, has far more safeguards built into it than the Emergency Powers Act 1920, which it replaces. The triple lock is the cornerstone of the safeguards set out in the Bill. Three stringent tests must be met if emergency powers are to be used. First, the emergency must be serious and require immediate action. Secondly, it must be necessary to take emergency powers, such as when it is not possible to introduce a Bill in the usual way; that deals with one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Thirdly, emergency regulations must be proportionate to the aspect or effect of the emergency at which they are directed.
	A range of additional safeguards is on top of that triple lock—we shall debate that in other groups of amendments—as well as the automatic safeguards of the public test of reasonableness and the provisions of the European convention on human rights, which apply to all legislation.

William Cash: The hon. Lady refers to the test of reasonableness. Hopefully she will be aware of the case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the late 1940s, in which the question of reasonableness, which had been imported into regulation 18B of the defence regulations, came into question. Where is the test of reasonableness expressly stated in respect to the application of the powers? Furthermore, does she agree that Lord Diplock and a series of other judges said that the case of Liversidge v. Anderson was bad law? I asked in Committee for that to be examined, but I do not think that it was.

Ruth Kelly: I have had no indication from business managers that there was insufficient time to discuss that in Committee. The public law test of reasonableness applied to the 1920 Act and will continue to apply. We would agree that the case the hon. Gentleman cites is bad law, but it is not necessary to provide for a test of reasonableness on the face of the Bill.
	I outlined the additional safeguards on top of those that applied to the 1920 Act. We will go on to debate the need for emergency regulations to be compatible with the Human Rights Act and whether that is a sufficient safeguard. I would argue that it is, but that will be discussed in the next group of amendments.

John Bercow: The Bill envisages a vast and unwarranted arrogation of powers from Parliament to the Executive. Why does clause 20(3)(c) include Government Whips as the persons entitled to make regulations?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman will find that senior Ministers are able to carry that out in some circumstances.

John Bercow: I do not want to encroach on private grief, and, equally, far be it from me to settle the hon. Lady's disputes with Government Whips, but I hope she realises that reference to Government Whips includes senior Ministers and the other way around. The Government Whips would have that power under the terms of the Bill. They are rejoicing in it. It is up to her either to apologise for it or to explain it satisfactorily.

Ruth Kelly: I remind the hon. Gentleman that a reference to senior Ministers includes Lords Commissioners.

John Bercow: I told the Minister that.

Ruth Kelly: So the hon. Gentleman accepts that, and Lords Commissioners are indeed senior Ministers.

Douglas Hogg: They are not.

Ruth Kelly: They certainly are. We are not talking about junior Ministers. There needs to be a fall-back position in case Her Majesty the Queen cannot act in a timely fashion. The process set out in the Bill has been followed in other cases.

Richard Shepherd: This is an important point, although relatively small. We understood that the inclusion of Treasury Ministers or Lords Commissioners was to allow for a direct reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one would have difficulty with that. However, the Bill as drafted includes the first three Whips from the Whips Office. There is something ludicrous about Whips who never speak in the House being able to amend primary legislation.

Ruth Kelly: The Government are following conventional procedure when Her Majesty is unable to act in a timely fashion for whatever reason. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the inclusion of Lords Commissioners is not the core of the debate.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Ruth Kelly: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to address the point.
	The question is whether the Bill should be subject to a sunset clause after a period of time or whether it falls into the same category as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Let me explain the difference. Under the Act, things are being done—perhaps as we speak—such as the detention of foreign nationals who are suspected of being terrorists and the sharing of relevant confidential information between Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue and the intelligence services. In other words, there is something to review—the action that has taken place under that Act—after two years of its operation. We hope that part 2 of the Bill remains unused for many years to come. The legislation that it replaces remained unused for 29 years.

Patrick Mercer: rose—

Ruth Kelly: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point. What would the review team review unless and until emergency regulations were made? The debate and the review would merely be a rerun of the debates in the course of the Bill's passage. If regulations are made, they will be scrutinised in depth by Parliament at that time.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) suggested that the Cabinet Office and the Government are promoting the use of sunset clauses. I do not differ from him in that. In fact, I am the Minister with responsibility for better regulation and know about promoting the use of sunset clauses in government. Cabinet Office guidelines—I have taken the trouble to look them up—say that sunset clauses should be used where appropriate. They also set out a long list of when that might be appropriate. I shall read out just two items that might interest the hon. Gentleman were he making this point. Examples include—I say this to argue that they should not be used in future—measures extending the powers of the state or reducing civil liberties, reserve powers that may never be used or bodies that are set up but not immediately given any powers to do anything. One might argue that those are relevant to this debate; it could be argued that part 2 of the Bill extends the powers of the state or reduces civil liberties.
	I would argue, however, that the need for any regulations made under the Bill to be approved by Parliament offsets any argument that the Bill itself should contain a sunset clause. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that sunset clauses are appropriate for the regulations, which is why I pointed out to the House that there is an in-built sunset clause; the regulations will lapse 30 days after they are made. The House can shorten that time if it wants to.
	Another hon. Gentleman—I am afraid that I forget exactly who it was—argued that the existence of an in-built sunset clause does not prevent the Government from laying another set of emergency regulations. But if that were done, the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny would have to be gone through again; and the triple lock would apply; and the debate would have to take place; and in that debate there would undoubtedly be an evaluation of how the powers in the Act and the regulations had been used.

Oliver Heald: Does not the Minister understand the distinction, which I have been making throughout the debate, that if a Whip were, on a regular basis, stationing an armed person at the end of one's road to stop one's movement, one might want, after three years, to review the operation of the Act, as it may be that on one occasion that action was justified?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have much faith in the concept of Parliament, which is here to scrutinise the exercise of the regulations and decide whether the triple lock applies and whether the powers exercised are appropriate and reasonable. That is why the triple lock is set out, and Parliament has the power not only to debate but to amend the regulations to ensure that they are being used in an appropriate fashion.
	I believe that Parliament can be quite effective in scrutinising the Government from time to time. I believe that Parliament would not be shy of criticising or constraining the Government were it, for example, to consider that a situation was not an emergency, that the range of powers should be narrowed or that the powers were being exercised in an unreasonable way that was not consistent with the nature of the emergency. I would not expect Parliament to be any less effective in scrutinising emergency regulations than it is in other cases; in fact, I would hope and expect it to be more effective and assiduous in scrutinising those regulations.

William Cash: I fear that in her response to my previous intervention the Minister completely failed to understand the point that I was making about the test of reasonableness, and she really must take it on board. Under article 18B of the defence regulations there was a test of reasonableness, but it was overridden in the view of Lords Diplock, Scarman and Reid as being bad law. That is the point; if we do not have an express test of reasonableness, the liberty of the subject is severely at risk. The Minister made the point that she wanted proper, effective scrutiny, but she walks away from it when it is offered.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to disagree. There is a public law test of reasonableness in the Bill. It does not have to be shown in the Bill; it will still apply to the Bill. The safeguards set out in the Bill are far, far stronger than those that applied under the 1920 Act, legislation that was not used by any Government for 29 years. It lay on the statute book untouched.
	The safeguards that we have built into the Bill are far stronger. They include a triple lock on the use of the powers, making sure that the legislation could not simply be taken through Parliament and that the use of the powers must be reasonable and proportionate. Those are strong safeguards, and there are additional ones built into the Bill; for example, one that will protect compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, which we are about to debate in the next group of amendments.
	The Bill will not somehow become unnecessary after a period. Sunset clauses are appropriate if a situation is to come to an end after a short period. That is why we have included express provision for sunsetting in the use of the regulations. It is why we have also provided, exceptionally, for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of the regulations. It is why I argue, too, on behalf of the Government, that sunsetting for the Bill itself is not appropriate.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the remaining questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 52 disagreed to.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Scope of emergency regulations

Lords amendment: No. 41

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 42 and Lords amendment No. 46, with amendment (a) thereto.

Ruth Kelly: The Government amended the Bill in the other place to reinforce three key areas of protection against the possible misuse of emergency powers: first, protection of fundamental rights; secondly, protection of the limitations and safeguards on the use of the powers; and thirdly, protection of parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review where those are affected by the emergency or by response efforts. I remind the House that that presents us with a particular challenge, balancing on one hand the rights of the individual and proper protections for our democratic institutions, and on the other the ability of Government to take action for the collective good in the most serious of emergencies. We now accept that the Bill has been improved by the other place, but because we believe that we have struck the right balance, we will not accept the Opposition's attempt to reintroduce proposals that were long debated in the other place and ultimately rejected.
	It is important to be clear from the outset about the function of emergency powers and the safeguards in the Bill to prevent their misuse. Emergency powers exist to make temporary changes to the law, as we have just debated, where effective response is prohibited by insufficient powers or hindered by statutory requirements. Any regulations made will be temporary and can be made only for the purposes of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in question. They must be necessary and proportionate, compatible with the Human Rights Act and will be scrutinised by Parliament.
	The possibility of temporarily amending legislation of constitutional importance was examined in detail both by the Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and during debates in both Houses. Discussions have also taken place with civil liberties groups. The Government, too, are concerned that emergency powers should not be used to make substantive amendments that undermine the constitution of the United Kingdom. We are satisfied that the Bill cannot be used for that purpose, given the absence of any express power to do so. In the light of concerns expressed by civil liberties groups and by Members of both Houses, the Government looked again at the position of the Human Rights Act 1988. We remain convinced that nothing in the Bill would allow the Government to disapply or amend it. However, an express provision to the effect that emergency regulations cannot disapply or modify any provision in the Human Rights Act would offer the certainty and reassurance that is sought.
	It has always been the Government's intention that emergency regulations should be entirely compatible with the Human Rights Act and should not be used to modify or suspend it. We believe that, unlike other pieces of constitutionally significant legislation, the Human Rights Act sets out the relationship between the individual and the state that is at the heart of the operation of emergency powers and fundamental to concerns about their possible use. Our acceptance of express protection in the case of the Human Rights Act must not be seen as casting doubt on the fact that emergency powers cannot be used to make substantive amendments to constitutionally important enactments, an issue discussed at length in Committee and in another place. We are convinced that the absence of specific protection for that Act would not allow its disapplication or modification.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady will know that, throughout our previous proceedings, we said that the provision that she has now made for the Human Rights Act was needed. It is hard to see why the same principle should not apply to habeas corpus or the Bill of Rights. Can she make a distinction between the Human Rights Act on the one hand and the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus on the other?

Ruth Kelly: The Bill of Rights was passed to declare the rights and liberties of the people and to ensure the succession to the throne. With the passing of the Human Rights Act and the Regency Acts, those intentions are effectively protected. Many of the protections set out in the Bill of Rights have been overtaken by the Human Rights Act, and others, such as the protection given to Protestants to prevent them from being disarmed when "papists" are both armed and employed, contrary to the law, are no longer relevant. Other protections in the Bill of Rights, such as the prohibition on raising tax or keeping a standing army in peacetime without the consent of Parliament are simply not things a Government could claim are reasonable, necessary and proportionate under the terms of the Civil Contingencies Bill, given that the purpose of emergency powers is to provide temporary new powers to prevent, control or mitigate emergencies because existing powers are insufficient.

Douglas Hogg: I welcome the fact that the Minister has told the House that the Human Rights Act will be protected, and cannot be amended under the Bill. That is good news. However, can powers and articles in the Human Rights Act be relied upon as a means of attacking the regulations made under the Bill? In other words, can the rights enshrined in the articles of the Human Rights Act be asserted against the regulations?

Ruth Kelly: I certainly can provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with that assurance. While we did not think it necessary to accept express protection for the Human Rights Act, we thought that so doing would provide additional certainty and reassurance to people who were concerned about how the Bill might be used. That is the spirit in which we acted, and our acceptance of that protection does not in any way undermine or cast doubt on the fact that emergency powers cannot be used to make substantive amendments to other constitutionally important enactments.

William Cash: I hope that the Minister does not disagree with the proposition that the Human Rights Act is not an entrenched constitutional provision. In fact, in the case of Simms and O'Brien, Lord Hoffmann, a great advocate of human rights, the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the Home Secretary all said that the Human Rights Act could be amended or repealed. It is therefore not the entrenched provision that the Minister has sought to claim is a bulwark for liberty.

Ruth Kelly: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The reasons why the Government believe that express protection for constitutional enactments is unnecessary are set out in detail in our response to the report by the Joint Committee, and were outlined by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in Committee. They have also been set out in the other place.
	In summary, legislation does not operate in isolation, and must be seen in the context of our wider constitutional law. There are two key presumptions—first, it is important to remember that a power to make secondary legislation would be interpreted in light of the purpose of the power. Secondly, in considering the scope of the power to modify enactments, it is important to acknowledge the status accorded to enactments of constitutional importance in recent judicial announcements. In that regard, Thoburn v. Sunderland city council, known as the metric martyrs case, is the clearest precedent. In the light of recent cases such as that one, the Government believe that the courts will expect Parliament to use clear language before delegating the power to make substantive amendments to the Human Rights Act or a provision of constitutional importance to the Executive. Applying those presumptions to the Bill, it does not expressly permit emergency regulations to modify enactments such as the Human Rights Act, and it makes it clear that the purpose of the power is to prevent, control or mitigate the emergency.

John Bercow: I understand very clearly that the Human Rights Act will stay on the statute book, but I seek the same assurance as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). After the passage of the emergency powers, will it remain a robust vehicle for protecting citizens' rights? Will the Minister confirm that, following the passage of such powers, citizens' rights to pursue cases under the Human Rights Act in respect of the application of those powers will remain unaltered and undiminished?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly confirm that that will be the case.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Lady is making the case that the Human Rights Act is entrenched, so it is appropriate to name it in the Bill. However, it is not entrenched, because primary legislation passed by the House could do away with it. That route would be open to the Government if they were dissatisfied with the Habeas Corpus Act 1816, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement 1700 or any of the measures listed in the amendment. We are seeking protection for what are considered fundamental steps in our march to liberty. There is nothing distinctive about the Human Rights Act apart from the fact, the hon. Lady suggests, that primary legislation is required to amend, change or repeal it. However, her case is not a good one, because the same argument applies to the other measures.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, makes an extremely good point that the Human Rights Act is not entrenched, as it could be overturned by primary legislation. He also puts his finger on the fact that that could not be done with emergency powers. The House would have to debate the matter and use primary legislation to change the Act.

Douglas Hogg: I should know the answer, but will the hon. Lady confirm that the Government can derogate from the Human Rights Act without coming to the House? In other words, if an article in the Act is thought embarrassing in the context of the regulations, a Minister could derogate from it.

Ruth Kelly: Let me reiterate the point about the safeguards in the Bill. The Human Rights Act could not be altered, as I understand it, through emergency regulation. If it becomes appropriate to change it and the way in which it operates, that would be done through primary legislation. At that point, I would expect protection for the Act to be reconsidered. If there were to be a derogation from the Act, there would have to be an order approved by both Houses, so that, too, is an essential safeguard in the Bill.

John Bercow: The Minister has made effective use of additional information timeously provided. She said that, in the circumstances envisaged, another Order in Council would be required, and she invoked that point as evidence that there would be parliamentary scrutiny. Can she confirm that that new Order in Council would be capable of debate?

Ruth Kelly: I can confirm that the order would be subject to the safeguard to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It would be debated by both Houses and would have to be approved by both Houses. If not, it would fall. That is a critical safeguard.
	We have accepted the arguments that were made in the other place that protection in the case of the Human Rights Act should be made explicit. We do not think that that is a necessary protection, but it is desirable to create some degree of certainty on the matter.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister, but we need greater clarity in respect of the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We are in a state of derogation, as a result of a ministerial decision—not a decision of the House, though the consequences were—that the life of the nation is currently threatened. On that basis, the Government set aside a contention in the Human Rights Act. All of this is outwith the cognisance of the Bill. That is what puzzles some of us and needs reconciliation. Primary legislation is indeed needed to change the Human Rights Act, but derogation from it is a ministerial, Executive or Crown function predicated on existing anti-terrorism laws and habeas corpus.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is really making a point about the interaction between Parliament and the Executive in this and other cases and the application of the Human Rights Act, rather than about something that applies solely to the exercise of emergency powers. I have made it clear that, under the emergency powers, the Human Rights Act would have to be respected.
	I said that derogation would have to be approved by both Houses. There would be a debate and Parliament would have to be content that it was appropriate. I set out earlier, and in the previous debate, the additional safeguards that are in the Bill, compared with the predecessor legislation. I would argue that the safeguards go much further than the previous legislation and are appropriate.
	Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 46 provide protection for part 2. It is important that part 2 should similarly be incapable of being amended by emergency powers in order to ensure that the tests and protection that it contains cannot be amended. The Bill expressly provides that emergency regulations cannot be used to modify part 2. The Government have amended the Bill to move this prohibition from the clause on scope to the clause on limitations on emergency regulations, where it sits more naturally.
	On amendment (a), the Government are convinced that no further pieces of legislation require express protection. Adding a list of constitutional enactments—we have already debated this point—to be protected from the amendment would only weaken the safeguards in the Bill. As a consequence of the way in which legislation is made, there is room for legitimate disagreement on which enactments contain provisions of constitutional importance, and we do not believe that it would be possible to prepare an accurate list of enactments that ought to be protected.
	Take, for example, the devolution Acts. Some would argue that they are of great constitutional importance. Those less sympathetic to devolution may not agree. There are arguments both ways. The Acts alter the distribution of powers and the way that parts of the country are run. On the other hand, they do not affect the sovereignty of Parliament or the fundamental rights of individuals. There would be a danger that, if the list were not entirely comprehensive, a partial list in the Bill would undermine the protection of Acts that were not cited in it. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment on that point.

Oliver Heald: We welcome Lords amendment No. 42, which requires a person making emergency regulations to have regard to the importance of ensuring that Parliament, the High Court and the Scottish equivalent can conduct proceedings in connection with the regulations or actions taken under the regulations. The matter was raised in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe and by other Conservative peers. It is good that the Government responded and Lords amendment No. 42 emerged. A little credit is due for that.
	On Lords amendment No. 46, we have argued throughout the course of the Bill for the protection of a group of statutes to ensure that civil liberties are respected. On Report in this place, the debate was guillotined. In the other place, peers were able to find the time and minds were changed. The Government agreed to protect the Human Rights Act, saying that it was right to do that in the interests of certainty.
	If it is right to do that for the Human Rights Act, we cannot understand the Government's approach when they say that it is not also right to do so in respect of the other important Acts of Parliament identified by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that we have suggested on previous occasions. The list has been narrowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is proposing amendment (a). The Acts set out there are the bedrock of our constitution.
	Ministers say that the provision is not required. They argue that, if there is no provision allowing amendment of constitutionally important legislation, it cannot take place. They said that about the Human Rights Act, and they changed their mind. If it is right to have that certainty and that declaratory effect for one important part of the bedrock of our constitution, why can we not do it for the others?

Richard Shepherd: In the Government's responses to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, they cited a Law Lords judgment about constitutionally important Acts, such as the Human Rights Act. In other words, they identified one of those constitutionally important Acts. The other Acts listed in amendment (a) are undoubtedly constitutionally important and of equal standing to the Human Rights Act within the framework of law. There cannot in logic be an argument against the inclusion of the specified Acts.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend is right. How can the Government say that it is necessary in the interests of certainty to list a particular Act, and then say, "Oh, but we'd like to retain the uncertainty in respect of others."? I agree that that is an illogical position.

Richard Allan: Amendment No. 46 seeks to make an important change to the Bill. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in another place would modestly lay some claim to having persuaded the Government to accept it. Throughout the course of the Bill we have argued for the importance of the Human Rights Act to be respected by it. During the Bill's passage through the House, we were able to secure another concession, so that in clause 20(5)(b)(iv) we now have a requirement for any regulations brought under part 2 to be certified as compliant with the Human Rights Act.
	In a sense, amendment No. 46 is the other part of that—the braces to the belt. It states that any regulations introduced under part 2 must be compliant with the Human Rights Act, and that those regulations in turn cannot modify the Human Rights Act. That provides a certain amount of protection, such that any regulations under part 2 will have to be compliant with the Human Rights Act.
	We believe that there is a particular status to the Human Rights Act. We as a party are constitutionalists: we argue in favour of a written constitution. We do not have one and we do not expect the country to develop one between now and the end of this parliamentary Session, so we seek to develop some notion of a constitution in the legislation that comes before us. Although I am not a lawyer, I paid close attention to the words in the other place of my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is an eminent lawyer in that area. He advanced a cogent case for the particular position of the Human Rights Act 1998 in English legislation.

William Cash: rose—

Richard Allan: I shall give way to someone who is a lawyer.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some people do not believe that Lord Lester was right to assert that the 1998 Act is adequate to deal with all those contingencies? I hope that he will not fall into the same trap as Lord Lester, who asserted that that was why the Liberal Democrat Opposition would not support the official Opposition in the House of Lords yesterday.

Richard Allan: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that disagreements remain. However, I must disappoint him by saying that the divergence on that particular issue between the Whigs in the Conservative party and the modern Liberal Democrats remains. We will not support amendment (a) because the nearest that we can get to a constitutional position is to continue to support and assert the supremacy of the 1998 Act, which acts as a kind of modern constitutional framework guaranteeing the rights of citizens in relation to the actions of the Executive.
	We recognise that all legislation must be certified as compliant with the 1998 Act, which is a difference between the 1998 Act and other legislation referred to in amendment (a). The clearest way in which the part 2 provisions can proceed is to collect different Acts of Parliament, such as those in the amendment, and insert them into the Bill, but that will not give the ordinary citizen the safeguards that they are looking for on freedom from oppressive or inappropriate regulations. I accept the divergence of opinion and am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ably advance the argument for the inclusion of other legislation.
	It is important that all those who are concerned about relations between the citizen and the state should seek to bolster and reinforce the 1998 Act rather than undermine it. Sadly, some of those who seek to challenge this Bill also sought to challenge the 1998 Act as an alien or foreign import. The provisions of the 1998 Act are important and all regulations should comply with them. Now that the 1998 Act cannot be altered by regulations, we have the best possible framework to guarantee the citizen's constitutional rights in respect of regulations. It would be better still if the Government were to introduce proposals on a written constitution meaning that the provisions of the 1998 Act cannot be overturned, even by a simple majority in Parliament. We would prefer such a constitutional system, but we have not got it. Amendment No. 46 takes us as near as we can get to clarity. Sadly, amendment (a) would not enhance that clarity, but it would dilute the 1998 Act's particular and special position.

William Cash: Let there be no doubt that what Lord Lester said in the other place yesterday and what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has just said demonstrate the differences between us. Although the Government were pulled kicking and screaming to include the 1998 Act, the words that they sent to the Joint Committee on Human Rights when the Committee sought to include the 1998 Act in the first place were fairly derogatory.
	The 1998 Act is inadequate in itself to deal with the questions. That brings us to an interesting issue, which is also exemplified by the Government's agreement to the charter of fundamental rights in the European constitution—dialogue is currently occurring between Strasbourg and Luxembourg on how to resolve that matter. The plain fact is that the charter of fundamental rights might have appeared in the Bill instead of the 1998 Act, or both of them might have been included. In both instances, it is assumed that the arrangements set out in those international treaties should effectively take supremacy over laws made in this Parliament according to constitutional arrangements that have developed over many centuries.
	For example, we have just heard mention of habeas corpus. I have referred to the great authorities on that subject, in particular the chapter in Bradley and Ewing's "Constitutional and Administrative Law", which points out that, with respect to the question of habeas corpus, in the context of article 5(4) of the European convention on human rights, a divergence of view has developed. That divergence of opinion could be dealt with by amending section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to add the forms of relief that may be granted in an application for judicial review.
	We should have grave reservations about displacing the Habeas Corpus Act 1816 in favour of provisions emanating from the European convention on human rights. The Government hope that the European constitution will go through, in which case the charter of fundamental rights would be incorporated and exclusively adjudicated upon by the European Court. That would move us into completely different territory, because it would override the provisions contained in these enactments.
	We are getting into deep waters, and, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate the matter at the last minute, because such debate has been excluded during the Bill's passage. I could enlarge on that matter, but we are running out of time, and I am extremely concerned that amendment (a) should make as much progress as possible.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is right about Lord Lester, who was one of the progenitors of the 1998 Act and who, along with the Government, was instrumental in creating its form. My problem is not with the inclusion of the 1998 Act: Conservative Front-Bench Members and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam know that I submitted to the Committee, of which I was not a member, a list of Acts, of which the 1998 Act was one, and the Committee debated it. The purpose of amendment (a) is to provide the key instances in which the Government would require primary legislation to undermine some of the contentions of those Acts.

Douglas Hogg: The fact that the Bill entrenches and protects human rights legislation is important, because it will enable judges to interpret regulations against the background of the articles in the human rights legislation, which provides a degree of protection. I shall not go on, because the Minister must reply.

Ruth Kelly: I recognise the sincerity with which the points have been made in debate, but I argue that amendment (a) would weaken the protections inherent in the Bill, and, on behalf of the Government, I strongly feel that we should resist it.
	The Government always intended the Bill to be compatible with the 1998 Act, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) understands that point, but we welcome the additional certainty that has been created by its inclusion in the Bill. However hard one tries to agree a list of constitutionally important Acts that should be protected and put in the Bill, the list would quickly be superseded by other Acts and become redundant. Indeed, I believe that in some sense it could even subject the House to ridicule.  
	Perhaps more importantly, there is a real danger that any list of constitutional enactments, even were it agreed, will at some point be incomplete and partial. Such a list, which could not be amended, could lead a court to conclude that it was exhaustive and that Parliament envisaged that constitutional enactments not specified in the Bill could be amended by way of emergency regulation.

Elfyn Llwyd: I was on the Committee, but have held back from saying anything until now. I would say this to the Minister: first, the list could be expressed as not being exclusive; and secondly, she has just given the best justification for a sunset clause.

Ruth Kelly: Not at all. At any point in time—during an annual, a three-year or a five-year process—the list would, by its nature, be partial and incomplete, thereby weakening the safeguards inherent in the Bill. Once Parliament begins to list enactments that cannot be amended there is a real risk that a court could conclude that, notwithstanding the other provisions of the Bill, any enactment that is not on the list could be amended.
	The Government remain convinced that the absence of an express power to amend constitutionally important legislation, coupled with the clear expression of the purposes for which regulations can be made and the safeguards in the Bill that I outlined, ensure that substantive amendments to such legislation are not possible by way of emergency regulation. I accept that that approach lacks the transparency of an express provision for each constitutional enactment in the Bill, and if we thought that we could protect them from inappropriate amendments by including them in the Bill, we would do so. Given that it is not possible to craft an amendment to the Bill that protects the constitutional fabric of the UK, it is better to rely on the implied effect of the Bill as drafted, which achieves the effect that we all wish for by ensuring that substantive amendments cannot be made to constitutional enactments.
	I hope that I have made it clear to the House that any attempt to do otherwise would not offer the protection that we all seek, but could merely undermine the protection that is already there. Because this is such a serious matter, I would argue that it is very important that we do not accept the amendment on constitutional enactments and that the House accept the Government's position, which will ensure that the safeguards are maximised and that the constitution is as fully protected as possible.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 42 agreed to.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Limitations of emergency regulations

Lords amendment: No. 46.
	Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a)—[Mr. Cash.]
	Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 349.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment No. 46 agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty to assess, plan and advise

Lords amendment: No. 7.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 56. I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 7. If the House agrees the amendment, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

David Jamieson: The United Kingdom's resilience to disruptive challenges is already high. We have not been complacent. Since 11 September 2001, the Government have substantially increased the country's counter-terrorism efforts and improved contingency planning for and resilience to a range of emergencies. The amendments relate to the Government's powers to take effective action to protect the public and United Kingdom interests against acts of terror.
	Amendment No. 56 comprises a group of changes in one amendment. Its purpose is to provide a clearer legal basis for regulating traffic to prevent or reduce the impact of vehicle-borne terrorist attacks, especially no-warning vehicle suicide bombings, with which, around the world, we have sadly become all too familiar. We need to be able to protect critical national infrastructure sites, iconic buildings, places hosting events such as intergovernmental conferences and diplomatic premises from the threat of vehicle-borne terrorist attacks. For some sites, traffic restrictions may have an important role to play as part of a counter-terrorist strategy.
	We need traffic controls that put a distance between the detonation of a bomb and the target, to reduce the impacts of such an attack. Likewise, reducing speeds at which vehicles loaded with explosives can approach a target enhances defensive measures and can significantly lessen the impacts of an attack. Over the past three years a great deal of technical development has been undertaken to counter the threat of vehicle-borne suicide bombs.
	The purpose of the Government's motion is to ensure that a clear legal framework is in place to control traffic and deploy the necessary measures. It amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to enable anti-terrorist traffic regulation orders to be made by traffic authorities on the recommendation of the police; by providing for a Secretary of State override in order to direct a traffic authority to make such an order if it proves necessary; by enhancing existing police powers to control traffic in an emergency to cover terrorism or the prospect of terrorism; and by providing that traffic calming measures normally used to control vehicle speeds for road safety purposes, such as chicanes and pinch points, may also be used as anti-terrorist measures.
	Our anti-terrorism efforts must not be hamstrung by doubts or hesitation about legal powers, the consequences of which could be devastating. It is therefore crucial that the measures be agreed today.
	Lords amendment No. 7 relates to the Government's powers to require ports, airports and local authorities to purchase equipment designed to identify the presence of chemical, biological, radioactive or nuclear material—CBRN material—and to deploy it at ports and airports. As we demonstrated with the amendments relating to anti-terrorism traffic regulation orders, the Government are resolved to take the powers they need to combat terrorism.
	I fully understand the points that were made in the other place. However, the Government already have the powers that their noble lordships have sought to confer on us with their amendment No. 7. Under the Airports Act 1986, the Secretary of State may give directions to the operators of airports in the interests of national security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 gives the Government wide-ranging power to require port authorities to undertake screening and monitoring. Detailed requirements relating to maritime security have been adopted at an international level, particularly in the international ship and port facility security code, and at Community level, particularly in regulation 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security. The requirements include provisions relating to security assessments for port facilities, provision of information and port facility plans. The provisions are enforced under the Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004, under which ships and port facilities can be inspected to ensure that they comply with the Government's security requirements. Under clause 5 of the Bill an order could be made requiring local authorities—or any other category 1 responder—to perform their functions in a particular way. This could include the purchase and deployment of equipment that Lord Jopling suggested in the other place.
	The powers that the amendment confers on the Government are therefore unnecessary and otiose. In addition, the new provisions could undermine the robust procedural safeguards set out in the existing powers. Existing legislation sets out in much greater detail the scope of the powers and the procedures to be followed when they are used. If left on the statute book, the provisions of their lordships' amendment would cause significant confusion.
	I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, from the Government's point of view, the amendment simply would not make sense, and confusion over issues of implementing security arrangements are the last thing we would want.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the Minister, who has made a very clear case in terms of Lords amendments Nos. 56 and 7. If I deal with them in that order, I hope that that will be convenient.
	I begin with Lords amendment No. 56. The Government continue to talk about a lack of complacency and a need for awareness of the new types of threat that we face today. It is reassuring, therefore, to hear that the threat of, in the colloquial phrase, suicide bombers is being looked at in more detail. It would be interesting to know exactly how far planning has gone within Government to counter the threat to, for example, the approach roads to critical national infrastructure sites, routes that are frequently used for chemical and radiological material, and other high profile targets and iconic targets around the country. Exactly what is being done to counter that threat?
	The Minister will be well aware of the pressure, particularly from the private sector, for security industries to help the wider police family in resisting such a threat and of the difficulty that the private security industry has encountered in training operatives to spot terrorist reconnaissance and the build-up to a suicide-type attack. I should be extremely interested to hear from the Minister not just the theory of this but the practice.
	I entirely take the Minister's points about Lords amendment No. 7. I pay tribute to Lord Jopling and the points that he raised in another place, because they do, so to speak, hold the Government's feet to the fire on a series of different measures on which it would be quite incorrect to suggest that nothing has been done yet, but which have yet properly to be implemented in all our ports and all the different points of entry to this country.
	Lord Jopling suggests that special equipment needs to be installed to monitor the contents of lorries, and that we need further special equipment designed to monitor persons, ships, other conveyances or other objects for radiological—I think that should be "radioactive"—material. The amendments also require local authorities and other public bodies to obtain specific static or mobile equipment that is designed to identify the presence of chemical material, biological organisms or radioactive substances that might be used in a terrorist attack.
	Undoubtedly, the Government have done something about this. I do not want to go into the details of Project Cyclamen, because if I were to do so it might provide aid and succour to the enemies of this country. It is fair to say, however, that many of Lord Jopling's points have been at least partially addressed by Project Cyclamen and the installation of various bits of specialist equipment.
	How thorough has the deployment of that equipment been? Can the Minister say for certain that all airports are covered? I take the point about the Airports Act 1986 and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. The fact remains, however, that with the exception of some areas we are wide open to equipment being brought into this country. I have no doubt that trials in the near future will provide a focus for the subject under discussion today.
	I should be interested to hear from the Minister how far Project Cyclamen has got, how successful its implementation has been, exactly how far the Minister intends to extend it and whether, indeed, our airports are as thoroughly covered as Lord Bassam suggests in his reply to Lord Jopling.

John Gummer: Those of us who represent major ports have concerns about my hon. Friend's point about not going into the details of Project Cyclamen. Does he agree that it is important that those who live in the vicinity of airports and seaports know enough about these matters to be secure in their minds that the work is being done properly? At the moment, they do not have such knowledge, which is a serious worry.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, which underlines exactly the point that I am trying to make. I do not want to expose what I regard as loopholes in our defences under the project, but the fact remains that there is much that would be reassuring and deterring if the Government were to deploy more knowledge.
	In many ways, what Lord Jopling proposes would require the Government to bring that information to the surface. A provision
	"requiring local authorities and other public bodies to obtain specific static or mobile equipment which is designed to identify the presence of chemical material or biological organisms or radiological substances which might be used in a terrorist attack"
	would be particularly telling. For example, how much of that mobile equipment is currently in the hands of non-uniformed organisations? How much of it is in the hands of uniformed organisations whose personnel are not yet trained properly in how to use it? On top of that, how much have the Government thought about using the expertise of the 60,000-odd soldiers, sailors and airmen who are all trained to a greater or lesser extent in this field? I suggest that the answer is not very much at all.
	The comments that Lord Bassam made in reply to my noble Friend Lord Jopling therefore leave me slightly baffled. Lord Bassam said:
	"The resilience to disruptive challenges is already high. There is a strong tradition of effective planning and response at the local level and 30 years of Northern Ireland terrorism has established a capability within Government and an awareness among businesses and the public which puts the UK in a comparatively strong position. But we are not complacent. Since 11 September 2001, the Government have substantially increased the country's counter-terrorism efforts and have improved contingency planning and resilience to a range of emergencies.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 782.]
	I do not think so. Will the Minister tell us how many practical exercises the Government have carried out in resilience terms? I am not referring to table-top or command post exercises. How many practical exercises have there been of the sort that do not take place on a Sunday morning or in a barracks or another controlled area and in which there is a realistic level of civilian traffic, both pedestrian and vehicle, trains are running and there is a realistic amount of congestion to deal with? The answer is not one.
	Will the Minister look closely at the amendments? I believe that they have great merit, and it appals me that Lord Bassam's reply concentrates on 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland and effective planning and response at a local level. All that is completely behind the curve.

Nicholas Winterton: Following up the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), is my hon. Friend not of the view that, if the Government were a bit more forthcoming with information and about the availability of technology and equipment that could trace and identify the sort of matter or products involved, including nuclear chemicals and other such materials, it would be not only a huge reassurance to those of us who represents constituencies with a major airport nearby—in my case, it is Manchester international airport—but a deterrent to those who might think of smuggling into this country the material that our noble Friend Lord Jopling sought to deal with in his amendments?

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which again underlines the point that I am trying to make. In Committee, we suggested to the Government that there should be an effective method of informing the public not only of the threat, but of what they should do in the event of the threat of an attack or an actual attack. The Government told us that that proposal was completely unnecessary, that it was scaremongering and that it would be doing the terrorist's job for him. Within weeks of making those comments, however, they issued a booklet—it did not go to every household in the country, although they tried to ensure that it did—trying to address precisely those points. As he says, they could go much further in terms of reassurance and in terms of the next leg of the argument—training the public in how to deal with the threat that is in front of them.
	In conclusion, I would be extremely pleased to hear the Minister accept the points that my noble Friend Lord Jopling has made for the simple reason that the amendments would underline the inadequacy of the Government's response at the moment and require them to produce a wholly better and more cohesive policy in future.

Richard Allan: The Minister has set out a sensible case in respect of Lords amendment No. 56. We should spell out in legislation the way in which highways alterations will take place for the purposes of civil contingencies, and it is sensible to include such provision in the Bill.
	Lords amendment No. 56 adds up to more than three pages of additional text in a 30-odd page Bill, so 10 per cent. of the Bill could be taken up in dealing with quite a minor issue. Having been in local government, I cannot help but reflect that, just as we love to spell out everything in traffic regulations in intimate and minute detail, down to the width of double yellow lines, when we come to try to define in law how we can make alterations for the purposes of anti-terrorism, we seem similarly to be required to spell everything out in minute detail to give appropriate legal authority. None the less, the provisions are unremarkable in what they are seeking to achieve.
	On Lords amendment No. 7, the Liberal Democrats are running counter to the thrust of the debate so far today, in which we have been seeking to limit the Government's powers and tie their hands to a degree. Lords amendment No. 7 offers the Government an additional permissive power to make regulations. The Minister said they could already introduce such regulations, but the amendment, which was moved by Lord Jopling but had the support of my Liberal Democrats as well as the official Opposition, seeks to spell out the way in which the Government can make regulations in respect of the protective measures that need to be taken to prevent harmful materials from coming through ports and so on.
	I thought that the Minister helped to strengthen the case for the amendment in his speech. He referred to all the existing measures that require ports and various other people to take the sort of measures that we are talking about. There is, however, quite a complex web of regulatory powers, and it might be helpful for a comprehensive Civil Contingencies Bill to spell out that the regulations affecting the ports authorities and everybody else should fall within the overall framework. They may have to meet other legal requirements anyway, but having one port of call would be helpful, and part 1 could effectively say to responders, "These are your duties and responsibilities." Including in those responsibilities protection, scanning and the purchase and provision of equipment for detecting the noxious substances might be helpful. It would not mean that those involved did not have other legal responsibilities; it would simply mean that the civil contingencies regulations were pulled together in one place.
	The Minister may say that the Government will take such action anyway, but the purpose of the amendment is sensible; it seeks to highlight those issues and include them in the Bill. If we send back reasons why we disagree with the Lords—the Government will command the majority to ensure that that happens—I hope that the Government can give additional reassurances in discussions in another place that the issue is covered. The fact that it is covered in other disparate measures is not sufficient reason for it not to be mentioned in the big, comprehensive measure before us today, which seeks to cover all eventualities. Not including such reference will leave a gap that Lords amendment No. 7 tries sensibly to plug.

John Gummer: When the Minister replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), I hope that he will also bear it in mind that, on the other side of the issue, there is considerable disquiet about actions that are unnecessary, otiose or intrusive. I say again that it is outrageous that, for example, it would be impossible to drive around Grosvenor square. It is unacceptable that such a restriction should be imposed. I think that it is illegal, although I have found it impossible to get an answer from the Government as to whether a proper case has been made under present legislation. The situation is similar with regard to the road behind the embassy. If an embassy cannot operate in a way that enables the rest of the world to go about its business, we should ask ourselves whether it is in the right place. I wish we would apply the same criterion abroad, to avoid an unacceptable impact on the public.
	I hope the Minister will reassure us that the measures will be used for their intended purpose, and not for purposes of aggrandisement or interference. Will he also have a look at measures that have already been implemented, which I consider both unnecessary and intrusive? As I have said, I should like him to look into the measures that we take abroad as well as those taken in this country, especially in regard to embassies.

Nicholas Winterton: I want to follow up the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I fear that the powers in the Bill could well be misused. Let me put a specific question to the Minister, for whom I have had a high regard not just in his current role but in previous incarnations. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I should like an assurance from him.
	Like my right hon. Friend, I am concerned about the proposals relating to roads. I am thinking of chicanes, concrete blocks and the blocking of roads. My right hon. Friend gave the example of Grosvenor square and the American embassy. I want to be certain that the proposed mammoth, massive, overwhelming powers will not be abused by Government or police, and will be used and maintained only in the event of ongoing need. Roads often remain blocked almost ad infinitum.

Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that the impact of the amendments will be such that a Secretary of State will have to make an order for works such as those in Grosvenor square, which will be challengeable in a court of law if people disagree with it? Surely that would be better than introducing these measures on an ad hoc basis.

Nicholas Winterton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that on this matter, at least, he and I are as one. I believe that such proposals should be made only in the context of an order. I seek a categorical assurance from the Minister that these mammoth powers will not be abused, and that the House will have an opportunity to comment on the Government's proposals. I do not suggest that the Government's powers to act in a proven emergency should be reduced, but the Minister should appreciate the view of Back Benchers in both Opposition parties that such huge powers should be used extremely sensitively and carefully.

David Jamieson: I thank those who have contributed to this short debate for their generally consensual approach to these important matters.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke of the new suicide threat. Over many years we have, sadly, become used to bomb threats that have generally involved a warning and in which the bombers, because they did not wish to lose their lives, did not take quite as many chances as suicide bombers do. We are now living in a new world, and we should all accept that.
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else would expect me to respond to his points in detail. I cannot, for instance, tell him exactly what is being done in the privacy of the House. However, I can reply to his question about the use of wider security forces. In many cases the police co-operate with security guards and forces in ports who are not part of the national police force. Many people join in a concerted effort to create a secure environment around a particular establishment.
	There seems to be some confusion about the proposed powers. The debate seemed to centre on how they would be used, which I suppose is inevitable in a debate like this, but our proposals relate not to what we will do with the powers but to where they should lie. The hon. Member for Newark asked about specialised equipment. As I said in my opening remarks, powers allowing the use of such equipment, and allowing the Secretary of State to insist on its use in ports, airports or other places of entry, are already contained in existing legislation. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) suggested that we should have just one port of call. I suppose we could have brought all the provisions together in this Bill, but the Bill as it stands is not comprehensive and would not supplant what is in other legislation. That is our difficulty.
	As was implied by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the protocols for implementation are terribly important. They are laid out much more clearly in other legislation. I think that, if used as the primary legislation to drive future action, Lords amendment No. 7 would prove inadequate. There are 1,000 ports in this country, and a single piece of legislation applying to them. That is understandable to those operating in ports, but airports are a different matter.
	Powers already exist through my Department and through the Transport Security Directorate—TRANSEC—for the inspection of airports. We carry out such inspections with great thoroughness and rigour to ensure that the correct measures are taken, especially where there is the greatest danger. We take proportionate action: obviously larger ports involving sensitive goods or a considerable number of passengers will need much more attention than smaller, less significant ports.
	The hon. Member for Newark asked about Programme Cyclamen. I am sure he will understand why I cannot give him a full answer. I cannot put operational deployment on the public record, but I should be happy to have a private discussion with the hon. Gentleman. He also asked about the role of the military. We use the military quite widely. As the existing military aid arrangements are well established and work extremely well, there is no need to place legal duties on the armed forces. The armed forces are closely linked with the civil regional resilience arrangements, and provisions in the new chapter in the strategic defence review, including the creation of civil contingencies reaction forces, will enhance their ability to respond to emergencies.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what practical measures we have taken. Unfortunately, there is not enough time left in the debate for me to go through the three-page list of things that we have done; suffice it to say that many sensible, practical measures have been taken at both national and local level to ensure that we tackle the issue of terrorism. It is not a fixed feast; such matters are constantly renewed in the light of our knowledge and understanding of how the threat to us is changing.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about exercises. We have in place a co-ordinated, cross-governmental programme for exercises, which covers a comprehensive range of domestic, disruptive challenges, including accidents, natural disasters and acts of terrorism. I can confirm that one such exercise is happening in my constituency over the weekend and during next week—[Interruption.] It is happening over several days, not just on a Sunday. Sometimes those are table-top exercises, but at other times they are full and live.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made a very good point—the hon. Member for Macclesfield made a similar one—about what is in existing law. In existing law, but not, I am afraid, in the amendment, there are some checks and balances; for example, a permanent fixture on a road would require a local inquiry. The local authority would be required to post a direction to say what was happening and, if necessary, a public inquiry would be held in some cases.
	I shall conclude my remarks. The Opposition may want to push the motion to a vote and if I continue talking they will be unable to do so, but if there are any further points I shall be happy to respond to them in writing.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	It being more than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the remaining Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment No. 56 agreed to.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Meaning of "emergency"

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 29 to 36, 39, 40 and 48.

Ruth Kelly: All these Lords amendments streamline the definition of emergency, sharpening the drafting, rather than making substantive changes. They were warmly welcomed in the other place, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that the definition is clearer and more concise as a result.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty to assess, plan and advise

Lords amendment: No. 8.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 9.

Ruth Kelly: The amendments relate to the role of the voluntary sector in contingency planning. The Government now accept that there is merit in capturing in statute the role of voluntary organisations. This, we believe, will create a climate of expectation that their skills, resources and expertise should be used to the full. The Government have worked closely with the voluntary sector to get the text of the amendments and the package of supporting regulations and guidance right. I therefore recommend the amendments to the House.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments. They represent a breakthrough. The voluntary sector was disgracefully neglected earlier and, in Committee, we could make no progress whatever with the Government on this point.
	The work done by my noble Friend Lady Buscombe should be acknowledged. Her team has worked tirelessly and, at last, we have recognition for bodies such as the British Red Cross and others which have seen the example set by the Spanish Red Cross after the incident on 11 March. I am delighted that the Government have seen sense on this point.

Richard Allan: I simply wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) that it is very welcome that the Government have recognised the position of the voluntary sector. I know that it was a contentious and difficult issue, with different views being expressed within the voluntary sector. Bodies such as the Red Cross have been effective in keeping the issue alive, and the amendments reach a sensible compromise in making sure that the Bill formally recognises issues with which the voluntary sector will be intimately involved.

Mike Hancock: I am delighted that the Minister has reflected on what was said in Committee and on Report, but it is not good enough to accept that the voluntary sector is now part of the Bill unless the Government are also convinced that resources should be forthcoming to help the voluntary sector deliver on its side of any arrangements that it may come to. It is not good enough simply to write the sector into the Bill and then deny or refuse applications for the resources that will be needed by many organisations in the voluntary sector. I hope that the Government and the Minister will take that point on board.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Urgency

Lords amendment: No. 10.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Lords amendment No. 18, Lords amendments Nos. 37, 38, 43 to 45 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 47 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

Ruth Kelly: The Bill originally required decision makers to think that provisions of emergency regulations were in due proportion to an emergency or that an urgent direction was needed. Concerns were raised about that approach in both this House and the other place, and their lordships have replaced those provisions with an objective test. In other words, their amendments provide that an urgent direction must be needed, and that urgent directions or emergency regulations must be in due proportion to the situations that they address.
	We have re-examined the matter in the light of their noble lordships' concerns and worked hard to find a compromise position to which I hope that both sides of the House can sign up. Under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, when determining whether there is an urgent need to dispense with the requirement to consult the Council on Tribunals, the maker of urgent directions will make judgments of fact or near fact, so he will be deciding whether there is an urgent need to issue a direction or whether there is insufficient time to consult the Council on Tribunals. We believe that that approach is appropriate, so we will accept the relevant Lords amendments.
	We do not accept that it would be appropriate to apply such an approach to decisions made about the kinds of provision that should be included in emergency regulations made under part 2. Any decision made about the necessary scope of emergency powers, for example, will be more subjective. There will inevitably be a question of judgment. We think that it is appropriate for the Bill to recognise that fact and to indicate clearly who will be responsible for making such a judgment call. However, we think that we should raise the threshold of the test in such cases. We have thus tabled an alternative amendment that will raise the threshold from "thinks" to "is satisfied". That will require the maker of regulations not only to think that the provisions of regulations are appropriate, but to be satisfied, or pretty sure, of that fact. I urge the House to accept the compromise package.

Oliver Heald: Ministers in this House and the other place have gone a considerable way towards improving the nature of the test in part 1, which we welcome. References to Ministers thinking appear throughout the Bill, so I am glad that the inclusion of an objective test in part 1 is acceptable.
	Part 2 of the Bill provides for draconian actions, so although the nature of the test in that part is more important, the Minister has not been able to go as far as we had hoped. We have argued that the proper way to deal with the matter would be to require belief on reasonable grounds. That would have included an objective element, but it would have also required the relevant Minister to justify his actions. The Government's proposal that a Minister would to have to be satisfied that something were appropriate rather than only thinking that represents a slightly stronger requirement, but it is not strong enough. We shall continue to support Lords amendment No. 37 because we are dissatisfied with the Minister's approach on the matter, although some improvements to the Bill have been made.

Richard Allan: Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place shared concerns similar to those expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), and we made such arguments in Committee and on Report. However, on balance, we are inclined to accept the Government's proposal. The Minister has made the case that a Minister's judgment will ultimately apply, because we cannot avoid the fact that Ministers will make judgments for which they will be held to account about whether conditions prevail to such an extent that emergency regulations should be brought into play.
	If we come to challenge a Minister through the legal process or in the House, it is important that the test is genuine so that he or she cannot say, "I thought the measures were appropriate, so you can't do anything to me. If I thought wrongly then tough luck." The threshold of the test is important, but we think that the new wording is satisfactory. The inclusion of the word "appropriate" in the Bill will mean that we will have something to get our teeth into when we come to testing a Minister. Although there are several ways in which the provisions could be phrased to give us more certainty, we must strike a balance somewhere. We think that the Government have conceded enough at this stage of the Bill's passage to satisfy us that the test will be sufficiently robust.

Douglas Hogg: It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Minister and the Government in general have made a useful concession. In a sense, one could accept it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) desires to go with Lords amendment No. 37 and I am content to follow him.
	There is no doubt that clause 22 provides for substantive powers. I reminded the House of the extent of those in our debate on the first group of amendments. The question is: what should trigger the exercise of those powers? The test of "thinks" was too low a threshold. The Minister was right about that. The question is whether there is a significant difference between the concept of being satisfied and that contained in amendment No. 37. I think that there is relatively little difference between the two tests. The test formulated in the other place sets a slightly higher threshold. In ordinary circumstances, I would not fall out about that, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it is a matter of principle, I shall support him.

Ruth Kelly: Amendment No. 37 proposes an objective test, to be satisfied on reasonable grounds. I shall respond to the point about an objective test, unless the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has something to add.

Oliver Heald: If one requires a belief to be genuine, and also to have reasonable grounds to support it, the objectivity comes in the provision of the reasonable grounds. I accept that that is not what the amendment says, as I mentioned in my contribution, but it provides an objective test, something that we welcome.

Ruth Kelly: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that clear. In that case, an objective test would achieve the wrong results in certain situations and should be rejected.
	Let me give an example. Consider the outbreak of a strain of flu that is fatal. Faced with a cluster of flu-related fatalities in an area, the Minister may quite reasonably take the view that there is a threat of serious damage to human welfare in that area, and that it is proportionate and necessary to use emergency powers to impose limits on public gatherings to limit the spread of the disease. If, after a week of laboratory tests and developments on the ground, it becomes clear that the new strain is not highly contagious and it was unnecessary to restrict public gatherings, amendment No. 37 would make the emergency regulations unlawful. Anyone affected by them could successfully challenge them and seek compensation, even though the Minister acted reasonably and appropriately.

Oliver Heald: The decision that would be considered would be the one made on a particular day. The hon. Lady refers to a week later on.

Ruth Kelly: That is right, but the longer-term effect of the amendment would be that Ministers would delay taking reasonable and appropriate action to deal with an emergency until they were 100 per cent. sure that they knew what the emergency entailed. That cannot be right. The idea of an objective test, with the threshold set that high, is not appropriate. In addition, I do not accept that stipulating "on reasonable grounds" would solve the problem. As I said on different groups of amendments, it is not necessary for that to be specified. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to want to re-run that particular argument now.
	The "satisfied" test is a higher threshold than the "thinks" test and goes a long way towards meeting hon. Members' concerns. Let me give an example of when "satisfied" is a higher test than "thinks". If a Minister is informed of a credible threat of extensive life-threatening flooding in East Anglia, but there is a suggestion that the wind may change and the rain will fall elsewhere, he would have to balance and evaluate the evidence available. A Minister might meet the "thinks" test if he or she reasonably considered that the flood was likely to happen. The Minister might have some doubts, but if the flood were more likely to happen than not, and he or she had reached that conclusion reasonably on the basis of the available evidence, the "thinks" test would be met. However, to be satisfied that an emergency was about to happen, the Minister would have to be more certain. He or she would have to pretty sure that the flood was likely to occur and have no substantial doubts about the point.
	The difference between the two tests is one of degree, but there is a difference, so I recommend the "satisfied" test to the House as meeting reasonable concerns.
	It being three hours after commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Scope of emergency regulations

Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 15, line 6, leave out from "provision" to "for" in line 7.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 135.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Colin Pickthall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the Division, there was a good deal of confusion between Portcullis house and the Chamber. A large number of us, hearing that the Division was off, turned back; that may have been our fault. But when we returned, at least two of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and I—tried to get in the door downstairs behind the Chamber. The door was locked and our passes would not open it, despite the fact that the light was flashing green, so we could not get up to vote. Will you have that looked into?

Tony Worthington: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was one of the first Members here for the last vote, and the monitors clearly showed that the Division was off. I then moved to Portcullis house and misled hon. Members by saying that the Division was off, which seemed a sensible thing to tell them, as it had been announced. That should be taken into account, in addition to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can clarify the situation for hon. Members. The Division on Lords amendment No. 10 was called off. The Division on Lords amendment No. 37 followed in quick succession. That, perhaps, explains some of the difficulty. I remind hon. Members that in proceedings such as these, Divisions can be called at any time. On the matter of the door, I will draw that to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms.
	Lords amendment No. 38 disagreed to.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For our part, if you wanted to put the Government motions to disagree together, we would be content with that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, but I am required to put the motions separately. I shall go through them as quickly as I can.
	Lords amendment Nos. 43 to 45 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 37, 38, 43, 44 and 45 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 47 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Oliver Heald, Ruth Kelly, Ms Bridget Prentice and James Purnell; three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Ms Prentice.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

Housing Bill

Lords message considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 191B. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.
	After Clause 143
	Lords amendment: No. 128C.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I have already made it clear that this Government will not introduce the duty to have a home information pack unless we are sure that the industry and the public are ready. We are already committed to undertaking a national voluntary dry run of home information packs ahead of compulsory introduction.
	Yesterday, in another place, my noble Friend Lord Rooker offered a commitment that our Department will pursue positively with stakeholders the possibility of a compulsory element to the dry run in a local or sub-regional area further to test our proposals ahead of the introduction of national compulsory packs. That would be achieved by commencing the statutory scheme in the chosen area earlier than in the rest of England and Wales. Clause 231(8) provides the necessary powers. We will involve all the key consumer and industry stakeholders in the arrangements and in the monitoring and evaluation of the voluntary and compulsory elements of the dry run.
	We are confident that we have the flexibility within this Bill quickly to respond through regulations to any problems that arise before or during the dry run period or with the compulsory element. Depending on the nature of a potential problem, we could tailor the contents of the pack, exclude certain types of property from the duties or allow certain elements of the pack to be included later than the day of marketing, and so on.

John Hayes: I wonder whether the dry run will be in a low-value area.

Keith Hill: We have not decided where the dry run will occur. That is a matter for close consultation with the industry.
	We recognise that even with those commitments to undertake rigorous research and testing ahead of introduction, there are concerns among Conservative Members and in some sections of the industry that problems might arise that, despite the extent of the flexibility provided in the Bill, might be best addressed by suspending the operation of all or part of part 5 while they are resolved.
	In response to those concerns, my noble Friend moved amendment No. 128C. That amendment adds a new clause, giving the Secretary of State the power to suspend the home information pack duties. I do not expect that we will face problems that we cannot solve quickly through regulations, so I do not expect that we will need to exercise that power. Should I be wrong, however, this power will enable us to suspend duties while we put things right.
	I hope that I have allayed the concerns of Opposition Members and put to rest once and for all the suggestion that we are hell-bent on persisting with compulsory home information packs regardless of their impact.

John Hayes: According to St. Luke, there is
	"more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent."
	In this case, there is undoubtedly a degree of repentance on the part of the Minister, and we should be generous about that. He has listened to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. In that respect, despite my intrinsic reservations about all Liberal Democrats, I have to say that they have been at one with us. He has listened to the concerns expressed in the House of Lords by peers of all parties, including Cross Benchers. He has listened to the concerns expressed by the Law Society. Incidentally, although he withdrew the remark, it was not terribly emollient of Lord Rooker to describe it as the "Lie Society" in the other place. That was not the right tone for the Government to use in making such a U-turn.
	The Minister has listened to the concerns expressed by estate agents and by others who have pointed out that with the best will in the world—I think that the Minister does have good will over this—significant problems could arise during the trial period of these packs.
	Let me lay my cards on the table. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that home information packs are unnecessary and will be unhelpful. They will slow down the market, might stimulate further surveys, are unlikely to satisfy mortgage lenders, and will be insufficient in many regards.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not right that the state should compulsorily interfere with two freely contracting individuals, and that that is the heart of the argument that Conservative Members have advanced?

John Hayes: For once, there is a nuance of difference between my hon. Friend and I, who agree about so much, so often. As hon. Members know, I am not an advocate of the unbridled free market, and I believe that there is a civilising role for Government and local government. In this instance, however, my hon. Friend is spot on, because the case that the Government made—that this would assist the marketplace—was not made persuasively. It did not persuade Opposition Members and clearly it has not persuaded the Lords.
	For that reason, the trial, as we can now reasonably call it, becomes highly significant. If my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is right about this, as he probably is, and if our reservations are founded in common sense—as, in my judgment, they are—so that significant problems arise during the course of the trial, it is absolutely right that this House should have the power to suspend the implementation of the packs. That would mean that instead of a dry run leading to an inevitability, we would have a legitimate and genuine pilot scheme. Under a pilot scheme, one tests something, sees what has gone wrong, and alters it. The suspension suggested in the amendment will be essential following the failure that sellers packs will undoubtedly become; otherwise, we will experience the chaos predicted by many experts, colleagues in this place, and Members of the Lords.
	I acknowledge that the Minister has recognised those arguments. He has had the courage to make a significant concession, for which we must be grateful. But I have to say, although I do not want to be churlish, that he could have done that a long time ago. We had this debate in Committee, on Second Reading and during several other debates in this place and in the other place. It is an 11th-hour conversion, but at least it is a conversion.
	I make a prediction and a commitment. The prediction is that, in their trial, sellers packs will be a disaster. The commitment is that, when a Conservative Government are elected to office—as I confidently expect next year—we will use the provision to suspend sellers packs at the outset. We are not convinced about them for the reasons that have often been articulated. I shall not tire the House by repeating them.
	I am pleased that the Minister has made a concession, but a concession which would not have been granted without the consistent and energetic pressure that my colleagues in the Lords exerted. Baroness Hanham and Lord Hanningfield have been notable in that campaign, supported by Liberal Democrat Members. Without that pressure and the humble contribution of those in this place, who pale into insignificance beside the eloquence of our colleagues in the other place, we would not have wrung the concession from the Minister. He is a sinner that repenteth and I welcome his repentance. Sellers packs will not work. They will be suspended and the proposed new provision provides the chance to do that. We therefore welcome it.

David Kidney: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) represents the amendments differently from my understanding of them. The principle of a compulsory scheme appears to have been accepted by both Houses. The system of buying and selling in this country through chains of transactions means that it is important for one comprehensive system to apply. That will happen and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on standing firm and ensuring that that forms part of the eventual legislation.
	I thank the other place for adding a useful and pragmatic power, which may or may not be used in future. I assure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that it is not possible to suspend the scheme before it has started. I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work on the Bill and the subject.

Matthew Green: I welcome the Government amendment, which recognises that the Liberal Democrats were talking common sense about home information packs. We have our disagreements. We do not believe that the packs will be a success and the Government clearly believe that they will prove successful. We are glad that they have included a get- out-of-jail clause. We are pleased to have helped them to do that because we believe that the proposed new provision is necessary to ensure that the packs can be suspended if they do not work after a trial period or even at some later stage.
	The major difference between Conservative Members and us is that we have always acknowledged the need to introduce energy efficiency into the home sale at some point. We do not believe that it should be at the point of marketing but at the point of sale. That would bring it into line with the European directive. If the problems envisaged with home information packs occur and the proposed new power is needed, we hope that the ability to meet the terms of the European directive can rapidly be established at the point of sale, not of marketing. The Government have not given themselves the power to do that but they would have to do it to fulfil the terms of the directive if they used the proposed new provision.
	I welcome the Government's change of heart. We are pleased to have played our part in persuading them of the need for it. We are not convinced that the packs will work and we continue to have huge reservations about them. However, the Government have at least given themselves the ability to stop them when, as we believe is likely, they prove to be a millstone around home buyers' necks.

Keith Hill: I was sorry that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was a little taken aback by Lord Rooker's forcefulness. Perhaps my noble Friend feels that there is quite sufficient emollient on these ministerial Benches in normal circumstances.
	I know that the energy performance certificate has been a matter of some concern to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). The EC directive requires the certificate to be made available when a property is sold. It also says that the certificate should be made available to prospective buyers to enable consumers to compare and assess the energy performance of the property being sold. The objectives of the directive would clearly not be met if the certificate were just handed over to the buyer on completion. It must be made available earlier in the process to provide the consumer with a genuine choice.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow has raised the issue of what happens to the energy performance certificate in the event of a suspension or non-pursuit of the home information package. The power to suspend in amendment No. 128C is a power to suspend all or some of the duties in clauses 137 to 141. It is limited to those clauses and would not affect other powers or provisions in part 5, including the ones in clause 144. However, the power in clause 144(9)(a) to make regulations altering the time at which a pack document is provided will still exist. If a suspension order were to be made affecting the duties under clause 138, therefore, this would not prevent special arrangements from being made for the timing of the production of energy performance certificates, if that were deemed necessary.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister. My understanding of what he has just said is that in fact the Government would have the power to ensure that the energy performance certificate could be in place at the end of the process rather than at the start, if they so chose and if they realised that what they were proposing was not working.

Keith Hill: I am delighted to say that the usual form of inspiration has winged its way to me and confirms my instinctive understanding that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.

John Hayes: rose—
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 154
	 — 
	Interpretation of part 5

Lords amendment: No. 140E.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	Hon. Members may recall that in our debate on Monday, my guru, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), pointed out that there was a typographical error in the amendments on the register of home condition reports moved in this place last week. Lords amendment No. 140E replaces the reference in subsection (7) of the new clause to subsection (3), which relates to the paying of a fee to register a report, with the correct reference to subsection (4).
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	After Clause 187
	Lords amendment: No. 191B.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 191C.

Keith Hill: I invite the House to note that the Lords do not insist on their amendment No. 191 and that they have accepted Government amendments Nos. 191B and 191C, which were offered in lieu.
	The House will recall that on Commons consideration of Lords amendments it disagreed with amendment No. 191, which placed a duty on the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure an increase in residential energy efficiency by at least 20 per cent. by 2010, based on 2000 levels. The Government have given further consideration to amendment No. 191. We continue to take the view that its effect will be broadly in line with that of existing policies on residential energy efficiency, and that there has been no weakening of the Government's determination to make serious progress on energy efficiency. However, we recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. We still believe that duties based on specific numerical figures are inflexible and better avoided in primary legislation, but we have decided to accede to the principle of the amendment as providing some comfort that the Government stand by the energy efficiency aim that they have declared. I am pleased that the 20 per cent. energy efficiency target will be included in the Bill. I am grateful to noble Members of the other place, who agreed in their wisdom to the amendment that the Government tabled on this subject.
	We listened carefully to the arguments made in this House and elsewhere and we accepted the strength of those arguments. What we emphatically did not take into account was the disgraceful full-page advertisement naming names that appeared in The Guardian newspaper after the vote here. It was paid for by Greenpeace and an organisation called ACT, of which I personally had never heard before and of which I wish to hear no more. The advertisement pandered to the vulgar tabloid theory convenient to at least some elements hostile to the Government that Members of Parliament will always in some knee-jerk fashion cave in to pressures from the Prime Minister. Frankly—I speak as a former deputy Chief Whip—anybody with the most primitive knowledge of recent events in this Parliament will recognise that that is a lie.
	The advertisement went on to state that the consequences of the vote would be the deaths of 30,000 people. That statement is outrageous. It is in plain ignorance of the facts of the case. Not even the most passionate advocate of the energy and fuel poverty amendments that we were debating would make such a dishonest claim, and nobody did so. The advertisement also betrayed a total ignorance of the way in which Parliament works.
	I shall remind the House and, more to the point, those outside, how Parliament does work. I acknowledge the position of those Members of Parliament who felt that they could not support the position of the Government during the debate, some of whom have a long history of advocacy of the energy efficiency target, but I have to say to the House in all candour—I hope that this message gets through to those outside elements—that the voices to which I listened were the private representations of the colleagues who rightly supported the Government in the Divisions. If a Government are to work, they must depend on the support of Government Members, who continued in this case to make the argument with me. It was precisely because I recognised their loyalty and concern that I worked in Government to accept their argument. They are the Members who succeeded and to whom credit should be paid. There will be no names and no pack drill this time, but they know who they are, and I hope that they will claim the credit.
	After the votes in question, one of my Labour colleagues wrote to The Guardian to say that, if anything, the Greenpeace advertisement would be more likely to heighten the Government's resistance to the energy efficiency amendment. I cannot say that I was not tempted. There is something of an object lesson here about the perhaps too easy signing of early-day motions; something along the lines of chickens coming home to roost springs to mind. Personally, as a Back Bencher, I resolved after the 1997 general election never again to sign an early-day motion, and I cannot say that I have suffered much as a consequence.
	Nevertheless, we have done the right thing in supporting the 20 per cent. energy efficiency target in residential accommodation. All the evidence suggests that the Government have been working towards the target effectively and that they will achieve if not exceed it. I repeat that agreeing to it was nothing to do with the pathetic stunt by Greenpeace et al. I know that such outfits have to justify their donations by various stunts, but this stunt could well have backfired, and I wonder whether those involved really care about that.
	I hope that the House will recognise that amendment No. 191B is a significant concession to colleagues who feel strongly about the matter. We are satisfied that the amendment will not place an additional burden on the Government. We have tabled it to rectify some technical deficiencies in Lords amendment No. 191. The definition of residential accommodation in amendment No. 191B mirrors that in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 to bring the provision into line with the designated aims, and proposed subsection (2) clarifies that that duty does not affect the duty to designate an aim under that Act. Finally, amendment No. 191C, which amends clause 231, the commencement clause, provides that the new clause introduced by amendment No. 191B will come into force two months from the date of Royal Assent.
	I therefore invite the House to agree to amendments Nos. 191B and 191C.

John Hayes: This is the second U-turn. Even the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), with all his powers of spin, will not be able to dress it up as anything other than a substantial concession. We have Lord Bassam's own words. This, he says,
	"is a significant concession and . . . evidence that the Government listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1397.]
	Yes, listen to their own critics on the Labour Benches; yes, listen to the powerful case made by peers in all parties; yes, listen—I think the hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge—to the Opposition, who have been both consistent and united in their concern to ensure that the Government honour the commitment on which they reneged earlier this year. Let us be frank: they switched the target from 20 per cent. to 16 per cent. It does not do the Minister much credit to get too high-handed about that and about those outside who drew attention to it. At least the Government have returned to where they began and set a target in line with what was suggested by their own advisers, most experts outside and most of those who campaign both for energy efficiency and against fuel poverty.
	I make no specific comment about the newspaper article to which the Minister referred, but I do say this. A range of organisations representing some of the most vulnerable of our countrymen have highlighted the fact that the Government were not playing straight when they resisted the Lords amendments initially—organisations representing the poorest of our countrymen, the elderly, vulnerable children and people with a long-standing commitment to the battle against fuel poverty. I understand why the Minister's parliamentary private secretary is embarrassed—

Terry Rooney: I am not in the least embarrassed.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed, because he initially voted against the Lords. I understand that he has had to see the error of his ways. He is another convert—another sinner that repenteth.

Brian White: rose—

John Hayes: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been a sinner in this regard. I rather doubt it, as he has a pretty proud history of standing up for those who fight fuel poverty.

Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that most of the groups that he mentioned understood the workings of this place and worked within the system to secure the change that we see today?

John Hayes: Yes, they did. I personally received many representations from them, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) did as well. I know that the Minister did. Of course they understood: they understood that they must put pressure on all of us who were involved in the debate on these matters, and hoped that they could bring about a resolution that was appropriate and deliverable.
	Of course those bodies understood how the process worked, but it is a bit rich to pick out an advertisement without paying tribute to some of the organisations that were measured and consistent in their campaign and that did not go over the top in their representations. To counterbalance some of the criticism, let me pay tribute to all those, outside this place and in it, who fought for the cause of eliminating fuel poverty, including all-party groups and, indeed, to those who embarrassed the Government when it became clear that they had started to renege on a public commitment made more than 15 times.
	When more than two dozen of a Government's own Members rebel on an amendment in support of the Lords, of course it is embarrassing. [Interruption.] Of course it is embarrassing to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who is now chuntering. I understand his embarrassment, and I feel a bit sorry for him, but he has been got off the hook by his Minister. Because the Minister has conceded, there will be a return to the original position of recognising the efficacy of a 20 per cent. decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, on the basis of the 1990 levels. That is what the Minister's commitment means and, in practice, many of the arguments articulated in the other place and in the House will find a form in the Bill in a clear restatement of policy to do something real and deliverable about emissions, fuel poverty and other issues related to energy efficiency.
	Once again, I recognise that the Government have moved, even though it was not of their own volition. However, their move is welcome because it improves the Bill. The measure is by no means perfect—it contains some good things and some very bad things—but the work of both Houses of Parliament, assisted by those outside who have made representations to us, has improved it by forcing the Minister to take note. That does him some credit, but much more to those who forced him to do so.
	I am pleased to support the amendment, alongside Members on the Treasury Bench.

Brian White: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Minister in the Lords for introducing the amendment, which will be welcome in the industry and which is a sign of the Government's good work on these matters. They are the first Government to try to tackle fuel poverty. They have a long history of doing so and the amendment is another in a long line of initiatives. That context is important, given the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), which suggest that the Government have done nothing, whereas they have a long record of tackling fuel poverty.
	I am pleased that the Government introduced the amendment. It seems that every time I rebel, the Government table amendments in the Lords, so I hope that they will adopt a quicker method in future. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the relationship between the 20 per cent. target and the energy efficiency target in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. That is useful.
	I want to say something about the Greenpeace advert. Last Monday, many people asked me whether they should rebel and I replied, "No, don't. Go and speak to the Minister." Many of my colleagues who had signed the early-day motion chose to make their point to the Minister in the Aye Lobby and they deserve credit for doing so. It is important that the House recognise that a large number of people who could have rebelled did not do so, but none the less made their point to the Minister. I welcome the fact that the Minister listened to them. That was important, and it makes the Greenpeace advert all the more annoying.
	I think that Stephen Tindale should resign as director of Greenpeace, because of the damage that he has done. He has attacked his friends—people who have campaigned on environmental issues in the House for a long time—and gave them no help. He did not attack those who have opposed such measures. I could have understood that if he had been a novice campaigner, although I would not have been very happy about it, but he has a long history of campaigning and understands it. As an insider, when he was a special adviser, he was part of the problem so he has a lot to answer for. If he does not resign, Greenpeace should sack him. He has done real damage to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, but perhaps he could confine his remarks to the amendment.

Brian White: I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Many Members have campaigned on this issue for a long time and they may not support future campaigns for fear of being stabbed in the back. The Minister has already told us that he chose not to sign early-day motions when he was a Back Bencher and several of my colleagues may make the same choice, which will be to the detriment of the House. It is important that we use early-day motions to put pressure on Ministers, so I am glad that 340 Members signed the early-day motion and that the Minister listened.
	It is also important that we take forward the energy efficiency target. I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken that on board, and hope that his officials will talk with the industry about improving the situation.

Matthew Green: The Labour party doth protest too much. I had no idea that Labour Members would talk about the Greenpeace advertisement quite so much. They have just given Greenpeace huge publicity, so that may have been counterproductive, unless a real double game is being played.
	We are pleased to have helped force the Government into recommitting to a target to which they have previously been committed and into putting it in the Bill. It is a small step forward. It is frustrating that the Government talk the language of energy efficiency but at times they need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do anything about it. They have a better record than the Conservatives ever did, but they have not always seemed enthusiastic about it. The Government talk the talk, but they do not always walk the walk. I am glad that, for once, the Liberal Democrats—in conjunction with others—have been able to encourage the Government into walking the walk.
	This amendment, like others on the tenancy deposit scheme and empty property management orders, has helped to improve the Bill considerably. We still have problems with home information packs, but much of the Bill is very welcome. Substantial improvements have been made, such as this amendment, and the Minister will be able to look back and be pleased with the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are certainly pleased to have played our part in ensuring that some of the best parts of the Bill, including this amendment, were added to it.

David Kidney: As one who suffered damage to his reputation by the Greenpeace advertisement that has been mentioned, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for making it clear that he listened to the representations of Labour Back Benchers who loyally supported him last Monday, as I did, but spoke to him privately about the matter. I am sure that even the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would agree, without spin, that my right hon. Friend has a fine record, in proceedings on this Bill, of accepting good arguments from Labour Back Benchers on a series of issues, including empty homes, overcrowding, park homes and tenants' deposits. That is commendable.

John Hayes: I just wished to put on the record that, as I have said previously, I think that the passage of the Bill has been a happy experience. It has shown Parliament working well. The pressure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the Minister acknowledged, has come from both sides of the House. We have been helpful to the Government in making this a better Bill, because they will not reach their carbon dioxide emission targets unless they deal with energy efficiency. They will now deal with that and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather lengthy for an intervention.

David Kidney: On that happy note, I shall end.

Christopher Chope: I note the Government's concession, but we should not get carried away and start thinking that it is a concession of much substance. All that the concession does is require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that by 2010 the general level of energy efficiency of residential accommodation is increased by at least 20 per cent. compared with the general level in 2000. No sanction will apply if that target is not met. There are no stepping stones, interim or otherwise, on the way to that target. We know that the Government have cynically abandoned a range of targets when it has become apparent that they will not be met. Why should we be party to allowing the general public to be duped into thinking that this is a concession of real substance?
	The fact that the Minister made such a play of the Greenpeace advertisement shows that the Government are frightened of the Greenpeace lobby and that pressure group. The advertisement obviously got to the Minister in a big way.
	Most hon. Members are concerned about the substance of trying to ensure that there are improvements in energy efficiency and reductions in fuel poverty, and we find that the Government talk a good talk, but that they do not deliver the substance. That is why I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seems to go along with the idea that a great concession has been made. I am sure that we rightly argued that we want to try to hold the Government to account to a greater extent, and we may have made some progress on that, but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have not got the whole cake.

John Hayes: Let us make no mistake: I do not say for a moment that I would not be a better Minister than the right hon. Gentleman or that we would not manage these matters altogether better than him and his colleagues. Of course, the House and the whole country know that, but when improvements are made, even if they are modest, we have a responsibility to welcome them. The Government have moved in our direction. The Lords amendment is not ideal, but it is better than nothing.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend says that the Lords amendment is better than nothing, and the Bill certainly includes words that were not there before. He is one of the most robust critics of the Government's good-talk-but-no-action policies, and I am sure that he is not really taken in by them. If he thinks that it is better than nothing, I suppose that I will go along with his judgment, but we should not send the message from the House that the Government have made a major climbdown or U-turn. To a large extent, this is an exercise in semantics. There is no point in having targets or commands without sanctions, and there is no sanction against the Government if they do not comply or meet the target.

John Hayes: That is true, but my hon. Friend must recognise that the measure of how far the Minister has moved in our direction is that, having consistently argued against our case and the Lords case, he has now written an amendment that is virtually identical to the one that the Lords proposed, which he opposed. There are minor differences, but at last the Bill contains a commitment to energy efficiency that is essential if we are to meet the carbon emissions targets, which we all agree are vital. The concession is somewhat toothless, but not entirely without teeth—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is quite lengthy.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that he can assure me that he feels confident that we know what the general level of energy efficiency was in 2000, so that we have a benchmark against which we can measure. One of the problems is that the Government promote targets, but we find that the baselines for those targets have not been properly defined. For example, the Government certainly kept on saying that they would produce a definition of congestion on the roads, but they never did and they eventually abandoned the target altogether. I shall give way to my hon. Friend again if he can assure me that there is a definition of the general level of energy efficiency in 2000 that would be a proper benchmark.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for painting me as the moderate in such matters. The Government's advisers have been very clear about the benchmark, and we called in aid those advisers when they said that they could not understand why the Government had adjusted their target. So the Government's advice, based on a proper measurement of the current situation, is in line with our thinking, the Lords thinking and the Government's new thinking, and I am therefore confident that we have made progress.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. If he thinks that that is enough for us, let us rest on our laurels, but I certainly predict that, when we reach 2010, the Government will have got nowhere near the target, unless we have a Conservative Government by then to deliver it for us.
	Lords amendment No. 191B agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 191C agreed to.

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12th October 2004 (Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put and proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Messages from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the Order of the House of 8 November, the sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bell to be sounded.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Housing Bill and any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it not unfortunate that hon. Members—if I may say so, this evening's gathering is distinguished—cannot use this time to discuss important issues? I shall give one example: this morning, the independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses was published. That issue is extremely important and many hon. Members have views on it. The House is sitting, so surely we can debate such important and urgent issues. Will the Chair make representations to either the Procedure Committee or the Leader of the House to see whether we can make good use of the time available to us on occasions such as this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is experienced in the ways and procedures of the House. He knows that the Order Paper is determined by the Government of the day and that the Chair can do nothing in these circumstances to alter that situation.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help the House by confirming that a Minister can request to make a statement on a matter such as that described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Will you confirm that nothing prevents Ministers from using the time available to come to the House and inform hon. Members about such matters, and allow themselves to be questioned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Many things are possible, but the Chair has received no request from any Minister to attend the House at the present time.

Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you could have been a little fairer with the Liberal Democrat representative, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). That earnest fellow always wants to talk about something or other, and I have a suggestion: the Liberal Democrats are keen on proportional representation and can bore people to tears by talking about it. They could explain why, some time ago, 26 Liberals voted for fox hunting and 26 Liberals voted against fox hunting, which is proportional representation—fair voting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience of the ways and procedures of this House. However, he knows that hon. Members could discuss that matter only if the Government had put a motion on the Order Paper.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When gaps such as this occur in our proceedings, is it possible to arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to attend and answer questions? Since he started his onerous duties, he has spoken at the Dispatch Box for only six minutes. My suggestion would give him the opportunity to answer questions such as, "What does he do with his time, for the taxpayers' £137,000 a year?"

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to discuss that matter—pursuing a point of procedure here will not do it.

Tom Levitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the real issue that we shall shortly be waiting in this House not for the Members of the other place to deliberate, but for them to finish their dinner?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has cognisance of many things, but that does not extend to knowing what is happening in the other place.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming—

Pensions Bill

Before Clause 229
	Lords amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment disagreed to by this House, considered.
	Lords amendment: No. 359B.

Malcolm Wicks: Mr.   Speaker has brought to the attention of the House the fact that Lords amendment 359A—like its predecessor, which we debated yesterday evening—involves the question of Commons privilege; and, like its predecessor, it relates to financial matters in regard to which it is the role of the Lords to agree not to initiate or to amend.
	Taxation arrangements made by this House would be altered if the amendment were to be brought into effect. The amendment allows annuities not to be paid where they might otherwise be paid; it extends tax relief by allowing more people in some circumstances to pass their tax-privileged pension funds on to their survivors tax-free; it allows, in some circumstances, for contributions to be made to pension schemes by people up to the age of 85; and it reduces the number of instances in which part of the tax relief given on contributions is recouped when the annuity is paid.
	As I said yesterday—

Steve Webb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I missed something in your earlier remarks, but I seek your guidance on Mr. Speaker's ruling on whether Lords amendment No. 359B involves privilege. Having consulted the document before us, I can see no judgment on the issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Lords amendment No. 359B does involve privilege.

Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I did not quite understand why, the Minister seemed to be speaking to Lords amendment No. 359A.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Lords amendment No. 359B.

Malcolm Wicks: Indeed. If I mis-spoke—as I think certain American Presidents occasionally do—I apologise.
	As I said yesterday, the Government recognise the underlying and serious issues relating to greater longevity and demographic shifts in this country, and indeed throughout the developed world. They have profound implications for the way in which our pensions policies should be implemented. We set up the Pensions Commission under Adair Turner to review the regime for UK private pensions and long-term savings. Its first report, published last month, provides a mine of detailed and valuable information on the demographic challenges that we face.
	The Pensions Commission is considering whether the level of compulsion in the UK pensions system is appropriate. For those investing in a pension, the requirement to purchase an annuity at 75 with tax-privileged savings is one compulsory element of the existing system. As I have already said, once the commission has reported on the wider issues relating to compulsory saving, the Government will want to consider with care and urgency key issues, including annuitisation at the age of 75, and decide whether they remain fit for purpose.
	We have recognised the high level of interest and are prepared to respond constructively and promptly, including on the specific issue of annuitisation as a priority action, once the Pensions Commission has reported.

Terry Rooney: Would my hon. Friend speculate on whether, this weekend, we can expect "Focus" leaflets to say how the Liberals conspired to try to scuttle the pension protection fund, the financial assistance scheme and all the other good things in the Bill?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend reminds us that the Bill is not about annuities and the privileges enjoyed by the better-off and the very rich in society; it is about pension security for large numbers of people in final salary schemes, many of whom have been urging the House to take action. As the Minister responsible for the Bill, I have to say that, given the so-called ping-pong that is taking place, I am worried about the measure. We want to see it become an Act of Parliament so that the pension protection fund will be in place to protect workers from April this year. I am sure that common sense will prevail, whatever honest disagreements there may be on this issue, and that the other place will want the legislation to come into force as soon as possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister accept that the annuity regime was enacted in wholly different circumstances? Life expectancy has increased considerably since the legislation was enacted, and interest rates are far lower than the average that prevailed at that time. In the current circumstances, people have no incentive whatever to take out a private pension, so does not he accept that the whole matter must be looked into urgently?

Malcolm Wicks: That intervention went rather far in an unhelpful direction, but when the hon. Gentleman began I was reminded of what I have just said: that the Government will want to consider key issues, including annuitisation at 75, with particular urgency, and decide whether they remain fit for purpose. I should have thought that any reasonable party and reasonable people in this or the other House would take that as a serious pledge to look into the issue—as it is.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I am anxious to read out the last sentence of my speech, but I always give way to the professor.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he explain whether his objection to the amendment raising the annuitisation age from 75 is an objection in principle?

Malcolm Wicks: The issue is complex and important, and has been debated many times in the House. There are powerful arguments on both sides, which is why we will look at the matter with particular care and urgency. I repeat that reasonable people will realise that we are making a key pledge, and if the many people campaigning on the issue want to regard that as a victory, they may do so. But I want to see a victory for the Pensions Bill, to bring security to British workers and existing pensioners. I should have thought that anyone considering what I said yesterday and am saying today would conclude that the nonsense has to end and that the other place should agree to what we are saying so that we can start the work of setting up the PPF and the regulator, getting on with the financial assistance scheme and bringing security and confidence back into the British pensions system. No sensible party would stand in the way of that; the people would judge it badly if it delayed the legislation.
	I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Nigel Waterson: The Opposition also hope that common sense will prevail. It is an exercise in machismo for the Government to talk about losing the entire Bill on the basis of this issue. Why are the Government so obsessed with what they perceive as unfairness towards other groups of pensioners, but are prepared to dismiss this substantial group as just rich people and only better-off pensioners? Is that old Labour rearing its ugly head again?
	The more that the democratic process grinds on, the more tired and stale the Government's arguments become, in this House and in the other place, whereas our arguments are as fresh and relevant as when we first made them. Is not it instructive that yet again the Government seek to hide behind the doctrine of financial privilege to defeat this amendment? Is not it amazing how the Turner report has rapidly become a catch-all excuse for this Government not to do anything on pensions? It is not a case of "Waiting for Godot", but of waiting for Turner.
	I think that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was the first to suggest that the Government should get the Turner commission to bring forward its final report to, say, February, so that we would all know of the Government's proposals for pensions by the time of the general election campaign. The Government dismissed that suggestion out of hand. Turner has given the Government a wonderful excuse to put the whole issue in the box marked "Too difficult". That includes dealing with the ancient and obvious unfairness of compulsory annuitisation.
	The arguments have been well rehearsed, but I shall make a few simple points. There has been a long and consistent campaign by the Opposition to try to right that wrong. We have had private Members' Bills from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who memorably scored a significant victory on Second Reading so that it is the settled will of this House to address this issue, and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill).
	The somewhat technical issues arising out of the earlier amendments in the Lords have been replaced by a much simpler, more straightforward amendment that would simply raise the age to 85. No one seems to know when the initial rule of compulsory annuitisation was first introduced, but it is clear that since then much has changed, including life expectancy. In fact, their lordships appear to have had a minor spat about exactly how long people will live, but that is separate from the central issue, which is that many more people now live beyond 75 than ever before. The whole rule is completely out of date.
	The rule does not only affect rich, well-off people. I can testify from my knowledge of my constituents that many people have done the right thing—and what the Government claim to want them to do—and made provision during their working lives for their retirement so that they do not need to fall back on the benefit system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) argued only yesterday, what business is that of the Treasury, provided those people do not fall back on the benefit system?
	Other advanced countries, such as Australia, Canada, the USA and the Republic of Ireland do not have compulsory annuitisation. Why should we still have that outmoded concept in this country?
	The rule is wholly at odds with the Government's professed policy of trying to incentivise savings. We all know that the marketplace for annuities is difficult, to put it mildly, and that the return on annuities has fallen sharply over a long period. We know that the savings ratio has halved since 1997. We clearly need incentives to save, and even the interim report from the Turner commission makes that clear.
	We just want flexibility in the system, and we have campaigned long to deliver it. The Government have slowly begun to move in that direction. There was a minor concession in the last Budget, but, typically of the Chancellor, it was grudging and complicated, and it seems people have to be Plymouth Brethren, or something like that, to benefit from it. When Lord Fowler said in the other place yesterday that the Government were simply being stubborn, he got it absolutely right. It is time to give in on this issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Government took office seven years ago, we had one of the best funded pensions regimes in Europe, but that we now have one of the poorest?

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that, like me, he can point to any number of his constituents who feel unfairly treated by the current system.
	The Government must show us that they are serious about restoring the savings culture and encouraging defined benefit schemes—one of the central tenets of the Bill. This is a proposal whose time has definitely come. The logic of the Lords amendment is clear: to take the pressure off those who might be approaching the age of 75 and to allow a breathing space for the next Conservative Government to scrap the rule altogether.
	Let me try to help the Minister in his negotiations with the Treasury. It might help if he at least pretended to listen to what I am saying—he might find that helpful over the next few hours. If we are unsuccessful this evening in supporting the Lords in their amendment, the Conservative party would expect to table an amendment tomorrow in the Lords along the same lines but substituting the age of 80, rather than 85, and it would be our intention to press that amendment to a Division in the Lords tomorrow.
	So let us have none of this nonsense about the Bill not getting through. If the Bill were to fall, it would be entirely the Government's fault for two reasons: first, their stubbornness on this issue in the face of the evidence and the patent unfairness of compulsory annuitisation at the age of 75; and, secondly, their crass incompetence and ineptitude from start to finish on the Bill, which was poorly drafted, badly argued, changed, with whole chunks taken out and put back again, and hundreds and thousands of amendments in the House and the Lords.
	The Government only have themselves to blame, but now is the time to cut out the machismo and bite the bullet, make a decision on annuities and free hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from the obligation, without putting at risk the Bill, flawed though it is in many respects. I urge my hon. Friends to support the Lords in their amendment.

Steve Webb: I spent a happy hour earlier this evening listening to their lordships as they debated this amendment. Given that the Government have rejected an outright abolition of the annuity rule, the Liberal Democrats also warmly welcome the Lords' attempt substantially to relax it by raising the compulsory age for annuitisation from 75 to 85. It was intriguing to compare and contrast the approaches adopted by the two Ministers: Baroness Hollis gave detailed, careful and thorough arguments, none of which stood up, but they were at least comprehensive; the Minister for Pensions simply said that privilege applied.
	Even if privilege applies, we do not necessarily need to refuse to accept the Lords amendment. We can say that, although privilege applies, we will none the less accept it. In other words, if we think that it is good, we can say, "Fine. Privilege may or may not apply, but we will take it anyway." So I am afraid that the Minister has let down the House by not responding to the substance of the Lords amendment this evening. Indeed, he did not even refer to its content at all, as far as I could tell, other than by referring to privilege.
	Surely the key point is that we are dealing with a different way of approaching the issue from the one we took yesterday. Yesterday, we said that annuitisation would be allowed in all circumstances except when means-tested benefits were brought into play; today we have the different approach of raising the age from 75 to 85. A different approach warrants a different response from the Minister, but we did not get one.
	Life expectancy at 65 has been discussed at both ends of the Palace, but Baroness Hollis was still unclear in her response. She seemed to say that life expectancy at the age of 65 had risen by 16.3 years, but she then said that the typical 65-year-old would live to 82. The two statements do not appear to be consistent, so I am not quite sure what was going on there.
	The issue is significant. If a typical 65-year-old now lives to 82 or 84, as the Turner commission figures on a different definition suggest, the key point is that, since the annuity age was last raised from 70 to 75, life expectancy has risen by three or four years or by perhaps as many as six or seven. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said. If the age became 80 instead of 85, as we are considering now, the case would be overwhelming. That would simply return us to the status quo.
	I am struggling to think who passed the 1974 legislation, but the key point is that the annuitisation age was raised from 70 to 75 over a 20-year period—it was first set at 70 about 20 years previously—to keep up with changing life expectancies. As life expectancies move on, unless we want the annuitisation rule to bite harder and harder year after year, we need to raise the age from 75 even if we accept the principle of compulsory annuitisation. It is self-evident that even to maintain the status quo of the original policy intention when the age of 75 was brought in, we must raise it at the very least to 80. The age of 85 goes further in the direction that we want, but the Government should seriously consider 80 as a gracious concession.
	I intervened on the Minister and asked whether this was an issue of principle. He declined to say that it was. Indeed, it is extraordinary that Baroness Hollis is saying that we cannot possibly make the change for all sorts of reasons. For example, when people take out a pension, they know it has to be annuitised so she says that it would be wrong to change the rules at the end. That is an issue of principle. She then says that those people have had what she described as tremendously generous tax relief. Because they have all that tax relief, it would be wrong not to force them to annuitise. She gave several other examples that also appeared to be arguments of principle. However, she then said, "Ah, but next year when Adair Turner has reported, we might change our minds."
	Is this an issue of principle, or is it not? Patently it is not an issue of principle. If it were, the fact that Adair Turner might come up with a recommendation next year would not change the principle. It is therefore a pragmatic issue and, given the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to the Bill—unlike the Conservative Opposition we did not vote to decline to give it a Second Reading; we have supported it throughout—we think that the Government need to recognise that it is not an issue of principle. If it were, they would not be saying that they might change their minds next year. Given that is not an issue of principle, why risk the Bill? Why not make a substantive movement in the direction of recognising that, even on a pragmatic basis, the age threshold should be raised.
	Important contributions were made in their lordships' House about why the argument about tax, which is obviously important, does not hold water. I fully accept that if people have had some tax relief on the fund, the Exchequer should at some point receive a fair share of tax. I accept that principle. We have already pointed out, however, that if people defer annuitisation but start to draw down and then die, 35 per cent. will go in tax. In fact, although Baroness Hollis implied that if the fund were not touched it would be passed on tax free, Lord MacGregor pointed out that if that added to the value of an estate, a tax rate of 40 per cent. could easily apply to the many people who have houses at or above the value of the inheritance tax threshold. That is the higher rate of income tax.
	If we force people to annuitise, the best that we will get is 40 per cent., which is the higher rate of income tax, and we might get less than that. If people do not annuitise and they become liable to inheritance tax, the whole thing will be taxed at 40 per cent. The Exchequer could benefit from not requiring compulsory annuitisation. I accept that the Exchequer has the right to the tax, but it is far from obvious that, by relaxing the rule on compulsory annuitisation, it loses out at all. Therefore, why not give people a choice? What would be lost by giving people a choice? No one would lose because the Exchequer would get its share, and possibly eventually more. If people annuitised, they would get a 25 per cent. tax-free lump sum, but if they did not do so, the whole value of what was left could be liable to 40 per cent. inheritance tax, and thus the Exchequer might receive more tax.
	The Government should give people freedom of choice. No one would suffer under the proposal and we are discussing only a minority of people, albeit a growing number, because more people hold direct contribution schemes and life expectancies will continue to improve. Although such people form a minority now, even minorities have the right to fair treatment, as one might say in a different context. If the proposal would mean that no one would lose and that people would get additional choices, I do not understand why the Government will not accept it.
	It is regrettable that the Government are simply arguing about privilege and that they will use their force in numbers to win the vote. We are discussing a matter of substance, but the Minister has admitted that it is not an issue of principle, so the Government should be willing to offer concessions. The Minister should respond positively to a pragmatic matter relating to a Bill that I support. I shall consult my colleagues in the House of Lords on the attitude that they will take tomorrow, but I hope that the Minister will sleep on what has been said and realise that we are willing to be reasonable. If he were to offer us the serious prospect of revisiting the matter, I would be happy to talk to my noble Friends to decide how to take things forward.

Malcolm Wicks: I did not think it useful to detain the House with a long speech because these issues have been aired many times in the Chamber and we had a proper discussion on them only yesterday. There is a difference between being serious and being verbose.
	The Government take such matters seriously, and that is evidenced by the fact that we set up the Pensions Commission. Its three distinguished members have already produced what I judge to be the best evidenced report on the pensions question this century—certainly for the past 60 years.

George Osborne: That is four years.

Malcolm Wicks: It is sometimes a struggle to be serious when facing the sixth-form humour of someone who might not yet be old enough to be in the sixth form. I want to take the matter seriously.
	The Turner report, which is a key evidence-based document, has given us a good basis on which to discuss such matters. I know that the comment made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) was not meant entirely seriously and that he made it to serve a political purpose, but if he reads the report—I recommend that he does—he will note that Turner says that such problems have been building up since the 1980s.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Not yet, because I am trying to be serious.
	I have told the House seriously that we do not want to consider these key issues in such an environment, but that we want to examine all of them, including annuitisation at the age of 75, with care and urgency to determine whether the existing arrangements remain fit. I wish that hon. Members would take my pledge seriously.

Nigel Waterson: Surely the Minister must accept that one of the central conclusions of the Turner interim report—Turner is unlikely to retreat from this in his final report—is that there is a crying need to reincentivise savings in this country. Does he not accept the argument that by scrapping, or changing significantly, the compulsory annuitisation rule, he might well achieve that objective?

Malcolm Wicks: We have heard all that. I shall give way to a more serious person.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To accuse any hon. Member of being serious or not is unworthy of the Minister. Will the Minister make a serious commitment tonight? If the full Turner report recommends changes to how the Bill deals with annuities once it is enacted, will he accept those recommendations and introduce them in the House as soon as possible?

Alan Johnson: We are going to win the next election.

Malcolm Wicks: I am never complacent about such things, but I, too, suspect that there will be a Labour Government later next year.
	We said that we will take the Turner commission seriously. Of course we will. The Prime Minister established the report and we will take all its recommendations seriously. We will judge them when we see them. We will also give serious consideration to the annuity issue.
	When I said that the House faces the difficulty of whether the Bill will become law, I was making the point that although there are serious issues at stake, most of those who would gain—this cannot be questioned—would be at the wealthier end of our community. We shall take those issues seriously. However, 80 per cent. of the people—just to give one statistic—with defined contribution schemes end up with a pension fund of less than £30,000. I hope that that puts in context the number of people who have a particular interest in the Bill.
	It is interesting that the amendment is not to the Bill per se, but is an attempt to bounce the Government at the end of its consideration. The key point is that the Bill is concerned not with just a few people—either the poorer few or the richer few—but with bringing security and confidence to more than 10 million scheme members in final salary schemes, who are looking to Parliament to pass it. Frankly, they will judge badly indeed any parliamentarian, whether serious or not, of any political party who stands in the way of this becoming the Pensions Act later this week.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 359B; David Cairns, Margaret Moran, Mr. Waterson, Mr. Webb and Malcolm Wicks; Malcolm Wicks to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Margaret Moran.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

David Burnside: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of your duties in the House today, you may not be aware that the Prime Minister earlier this evening briefed the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), on proposals to restore a power-sharing Executive in Stormont, and at the same time in Dublin the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic briefed the leader of Sinn Fein/IRA, Gerry Adams, on plans to achieve the objective of total decommissioning. Will you find time for the Prime Minister to come to the House tomorrow on this important matter for the future governance of Northern Ireland, to inform the House of what is in these proposals so that we can question him on what was proposed to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party and to the leader of Sinn Fein/IRA in Dublin earlier this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have no knowledge of the matters that he is raising before the House this evening, nor do I have any knowledge of statements that are being planned at this time. No doubt the whole House and those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the points that he made, and they are now on the record.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be prepared to tell Mr. Speaker that it would be for the convenience of the House if such a statement were made tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that Mr. Speaker reads the records of the House very carefully, and those matters are now on the record.

Post Office Closures (South Manchester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Keith Bradley: I am pleased to be granted this debate on the closure of post offices in South Manchester, because it is a matter of extreme importance to my constituents in that part of the city, as well as to people throughout Manchester who are similarly suffering from post office closures.
	May I make it clear at the outset that I am not challenging the urban reinvention programme? I supported it in the House and I recognise the need for a proper, effective strategic review of urban post offices to ensure a comprehensive spread of that service throughout the city of Manchester. What I am challenging is the consultation process undertaken by Post Office Ltd., and the decisions on the closures that have been taken as a result of that consultation process.
	In south Manchester, in my constituency, Manchester Withington, three post offices were identified for closure in the latest round of such closures. I shall briefly discuss each of them. First, I want to make a general point. When the three post offices were announced, one of them was already temporarily closed, but I immediately visited the other two and found that, prior to any consultation process beginning, arrangements had been made for potential pay-offs to those sub-postmasters. They already knew that the intention was to close those post offices before any consultation process had begun. Already there was an intention by the Post Office to identify and make arrangements for those post offices to close.
	The consultation process began with Beech road in Chorlton. Beech road is a lively local shopping area that has become more and more popular in recent years. The post office on Beech road is at the heart of that community. The plan to close the post office was greeted with great dismay by local residents and a campaign to keep it open was immediately launched. Petitions were compiled and a public meeting was arranged locally. I pay tribute to the two local ward councillors—Labour councillors—Sheila Newman and Val Stevens, who did so much work to properly gauge public opinion on the proposed closure.
	Several key points came out of that consultation exercise. First, a significant number of elderly and disabled people who live in that immediate area need local access to post office services. Secondly, the closure of that post office would have a serious impact on other local traders—the area is vibrant and expanding and the post office is part of that local economy.
	Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Post Office's view that the majority of current users of the Beech road branch would transfer to Hardy lane post office has no credibility. Anyone who understands the local geography of that part of south Manchester knows that if local people lost their local post office in Beech road, they would look towards Chorlton main post office, because of the natural flow of the population towards the centre of the city. Even now, however, Chorlton post office is incapable of dealing with the number of people who use it. Queues are long and no parking facilities exist, particularly for disabled people. If Beech road post office closes, it is a long walk to Chorlton main post office.
	When the decision was taken to continue with the post office closure, the Post Office provided this justification:
	"From our planning assumptions, we would expect the majority of customers to migrate to Hardy Lane branch and others to Chorlton-cum-Hardy branch. I know you are doubtful about Chorlton-cum-Hardy branch being able to cope with any additional business and I hope that when my colleague, Helen Jachim, wrote to you last month she allayed your concerns."
	She certainly did not, because the planning assumption that only a minority of people would transfer to Chorlton main post office was wrong.
	Even if a minority transferred, the capacity problems would remain, because there is also a proposal to close another post office, which is just outside my constituency in Upper Chorlton road, with those customers transferring to Chorlton main post office. The arguments that have been advanced have no validity and the consultation, which showed local people's genuine feelings, was totally ignored.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the story that he is describing in south Manchester has also taken place in north Manchester. The consultation was a sham and a disgrace, and false and misleading information has been put out about alternative post offices and the facts and figures in north Manchester. Today, Collyhurst post office is closed, leaving the people of Collyhurst without any obvious alternative—one of the two alternatives identified is not on a bus route, while the other, the Crown post office, is in the city centre. The situation is unsatisfactory, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Keith Bradley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view. The key phrase is "sham consultation", and my second example will underline that point.
	The second proposal was to close Mauldeth road west post office and Burton road post office, both of which are in the Old Moat ward in my constituency. As I said earlier, Mauldeth road west post office was already temporarily closed, and there were issues surrounding the location of that particular post office. It was only acceptable to confirm that temporary closure as permanent if the Burton road post office was still available to the people of Old Moat, and particularly those in the south of that ward.
	As a result of hard work by Labour councillors, again, we had an opportunity properly to gauge public opinion during the consultation exercise, and, again, key points emerged. First, and most importantly, a previous closure had occurred in that area on Barlow Moor road in west Didsbury. The justification for that closure was that the Burton road post office would be the receiving post office for those customers. When I did not oppose that particular closure because of circumstances in that area, I made it clear that it would not be acceptable for the Post Office to return at a future date and close the Burton road post office, which is the receiving post office for the one that closed. That is typical of what is happening around the country. And it has been completely ignored by Post Office Ltd.
	Secondly, Old Moat is one of the most deprived wards not only in Manchester but throughout the country. The closure of Burton road and Mauldeth road west would mean that the whole ward would have no post office service available to it. That is completely unsustainable in terms of the deprivation factors that should apply when considering closures.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend share my utter dismay that although Members on both sides of the House voted for specific money to be allocated to areas of deprivation where sub-post offices were under threat, the Post Office admitted to me that it is closing such sub-post offices, but has passed the buck to my hon. Friend the Minister and to other Departments instead of owning its responsibility to find solutions in areas of deprivation?

Keith Bradley: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. That flows through all the consultations that we have experienced in Greater Manchester and the north-west.
	A second key point about the Old Moat ward is that many elderly people live in that area, and if these two post offices closed, leaving the ward with none, they would have to travel to the centre of Withington, which for some elderly people is well over a mile away, to get post office services. That is unacceptable.
	Thirdly, the justification for closing the Burton road and Mauldeth road post offices was that a significant number of customers would transfer to Hart road post office. That view beggars belief. If the Post Office understood the geography of this part of south Manchester, it would know that the people of Old Moat would not even have Hart road on their radar. When I challenged it about that, it informed me that it had a state-of-the-art modelling system that had helped it reach its conclusion. When it failed to send me the details of that, I suggested that it might be better to ask local people what they thought about transferring to Hart road. The people to whom I spoke would probably need an overnight stay before returning home if they used that post office. It is a completely unacceptable alternative.

James Purnell: I thank councillors Bernard Walsh and Kevin Welsh for their hard work in Ridge Hill in my area, where we faced exactly the same problem as my right hon. Friend describes. We thought that we had luckily found a solution whereby the mini-market next door would be able to take over the franchise, but the Post Office refused even to meet its owner, on the basis that it wanted to be able to transfer all the business to another post office. Is not that completely unacceptable when someone else is prepared to take over the service for a deprived estate that is on top of a hill and a long way from the town centre?

Keith Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the course of the consultation exercise, I asked Post Office Ltd. to look for an alternative outlet in the Old Moat ward, but silence was the stern reply.
	The only conclusion that we can draw from these examples is that the consultation exercise is a complete sham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said. The Post Office knew what it wanted when it embarked on the exercise, and public opinion and the sound arguments that were put by representatives would only be ignored at the end of the consultation process. I ask the Minister to intervene in order carefully to consider the way in which these closures are being undertaken and the process that Post Office Ltd. is employing to arrive at its conclusions.
	Will the Minister consider the precise role of Postwatch in this exercise? At a local level, I have received extremely good co-operation from Postwatch. Dario Cottingham has been extremely helpful. He has attended meetings with me, and he attended the public meeting and tried to represent the views expressed back through Postwatch to Post Office Ltd.
	However, I question whether Postwatch is meeting the objectives that it set itself. Judith Donovan, the regional chairman of Postwatch Northern England, said to me:
	"As the independent consumer watchdog Postwatch want to ensure that a sustainable network of post offices is achieved and that any closure should cause the minimum inconvenience to local consumers. Postwatch is also ensuring that remaining branches are making the necessary improvements to create the network of 'bigger, better and brighter post offices'"
	for the local area. I question whether Postwatch can justify the closures and its views on them and also fulfil its commitment as the representative of the consumer in the process. Should not it challenge the decisions? Will the Under-Secretary therefore consider its role in the process?
	I strongly believe that we must ensure public confidence in the urban reinvention programme, for which the Under-Secretary is ultimately responsible. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Manchester and Greater Manchester agree. It is not acceptable for Post Office Ltd. simply to ignore the views of local communities in constituencies such as mine. It should set about trying to protect the most vulnerable, the elderly and the disabled in our local communities to ensure that they have proper and efficient access to Post Office services and that south Manchester, Manchester and Greater Manchester have a proper network of post offices that meet the needs of local consumers.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on securing the debate. As we heard from his contribution, he has been assiduous in voicing, on behalf of his constituents, all the local concerns about Post Office Ltd.'s urban reinvention programme in his constituency. I pay tribute to his work and that of others in the community in Manchester in trying to come to terms with an emotive and difficult issue.
	My right hon. Friend has expressed his depth of feeling and that of other hon. Friends about closures in Manchester. He knows that I met my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), Councillor Jim Battle and Mr. Eddie Smith from Manchester council yesterday, when similar concerns were expressed to me about the role of Post Office Ltd. and that of Postwatch.
	My right hon. Friend knows that responsibility for postal services has come to me only recently and that there have been many Adjournment debates, other debates and questions in the House about the process. I was grateful for his opening remarks about his support for the principles behind the urban reinvention programme. He is aware of the state of Royal Mail and post offices that we inherited from the previous Government. He will acknowledge and welcome the £2 billion that the Government spent on developing Royal Mail and postal services. He also knows that the Government are committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices for the future. In a wider context, he knows about the massive challenge for everyone involved in achieving that viability.
	Under the previous Government, there was no planned programme, and unplanned closures and many gaps appeared in the system. That clearly affects the whole country. My right hon. Friend knows that the Government's policy for the post office network was based on the performance and innovation unit's report, "Modernising the Post Office Network", which was published in 2000. The report was widely welcomed as squaring up honestly to the challenges that the network faced. It made 24 recommendations for the future, all of which the Government accepted. It showed starkly that our network of post offices had not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers.
	Too often, post offices had become dingy and shabby through lack of investment and were losing business. The business had lost touch with its customers' needs, which are different now from those of a generation ago. Following years of underinvestment, the Post Office business was in a spiral of decline.
	It is important to detail the circumstances that led to the company's rationalisation programme, which includes the closure of some offices, including those that we heard about from my right hon. Friend, and some in my own constituency. He knows that a number of post offices closed in my constituency of Bradford, South and that two days before I achieved this responsibility there were issues surrounding the Crown post office in my city of Bradford. I too have been heavily involved in the process that the Government set up to try to ensure that consultation was adequate and real.
	My right hon. Friend will know that in February our hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who had these ministerial responsibilities before me, actually changed and detailed more fully the guidelines for the consultations that he expected to be undertaken.
	My right hon. Friend and hon. Members will know that the Government are Royal Mail's principal shareholder, and that this Government gave Royal Mail the commercial freedoms that have allowed it to turn the business round, as it is doing. We are expecting to hear in the interim results this week that the situation is far better than it has been in the past. That does not help my right hon. Friend in respect of the closures in his constituency, but it is important to put on the record the general position, which I know that most Members of Parliament support—the need for a viable post office network within a viable Royal Mail.
	I shall pick up some of the points that were raised. I too, in that meeting with elected representatives from Manchester, was very concerned about the role of Postwatch, because there is a clear procedure for Postwatch to use if it believes that closures are unnecessary, and I had concerns about the matters that were raised yesterday, and tonight by my right hon. Friend. So I will undertake to contact Postwatch to see what was done to find out why perhaps the next stage proposals were not achieved. I want to know from Postwatch its role in this matter, because as my right hon. Friend has said, it is the consumer watchdog in this case and it should be putting consumers' interests first.
	I am also concerned to hear from my right hon. Friend's speech and from the meeting yesterday that the local authority, which has a wealth of information, was not included in the discussions and the final outcome. I will be speaking to Post Office Ltd. about that and I will ask the local authority to furnish me with information about the meetings that it had.
	I hope that that helps my right hon. Friend in the detail of the constituency issues that he faces. He will understand why the Government, and I as the responsible Minister, cannot and should not intervene in every case, because obviously, as my right hon. Friend showed great foresight in acknowledging, one post office could close because it was no longer viable.
	Postwatch has, up and down the country, made representations and resolved to the satisfaction of certain communities some of the closure proposals. I want to know the detail of what is going on as far as Postwatch is concerned and the relationship between the local authority and Post Office Ltd. That is the best that I can offer my right hon. Friend.
	In addition, now that this programme has been going on for some time, Postwatch is undertaking a survey to look at what has happened to those post offices that have closed, to see whether any gaps have emerged. It may be possible, indeed desirable, for the situation in Manchester to be examined, and we can ask Postwatch to do that.
	My right hon. Friend used very emotive language, which I know from our dealings on many issues in the past must be sincere, because he does not use such words without great care and cause, and he said that the consultation process was a sham. I would be very upset if that was the case. If the consultation process was a sham, we will need to investigate that, and we will do so.
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that the post office closures came about because Post Office Ltd. tested the water with many of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses about their individual positions with regard to the future of their businesses. Many of them felt that their businesses could not continue and were happy to seek part of the payment for closing them voluntarily. That was the basis on which Post Office Ltd. looked at those post offices and their viability.
	With regard to the consultation process, however, there is supposed to be a post office within a mile of any post office that closes. In the most deprived wards, there should be one half a mile away. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the funding that came from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to look at post offices in deprived areas and the support that was given to them.
	In general terms, I am quite confident that the principles that have been laid out to support the viable network being put in place are there. What worries me is if those principles have not been followed. Clearly, that is the basis on which we should look at the position outlined this evening. If my right hon. Friend wanted me to do so, I could go into even greater detail about a large number of other things, but I do not think that that would help at this stage.

James Purnell: I do not know whether my hon. Friend can comment on this point. Does he think that there is merit in the Post Office investigating someone else taking over a franchise if that is possible? Does he agree that there should at least be discussions on that issue if the consultation is to be real?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but if I dealt with it, it would confuse this matter. His point about franchises relates to directly managed offices and Crown post offices, with regard to which there has been lots of press speculation about what might or might not happen. I am happy to enter correspondence with him about the detail of the case that he wants to raise.
	It is important that we have a viable post office network for the reasons that my right hon. Friend has given. The Government are committed to that, and we believe that it should be done in a planned way. We have offered financial support of £2 billion since 1999, and it is crucial that we have a viable network. It is also crucial that the consumer interest is looked after. With the provisos that I have outlined to him, I look forward to ensuring that we get to the bottom of what went on in his constituency.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House do now adjourn.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the matter dividable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
	That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.